Semper Fidelis

Communion in the hand?

2007-09-17T11:32:00.015-04:00

Several articles, excerpts and links....

PURPOSE OF THIS COMPOSITION: As a someone who formerly received Communion in the hand from my First Communion until Mother Angelica encouraged my family and I to receive Communion on the tongue beginning in 1993 and as a theologian with two theology degrees, I hope and pray that this composition will lead Catholics away from receiving CITH to receiving Our Blessed Savior [who is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament] on the tongue.

This issue goes beyond any branch of Catholicism that one subscribes to. In fact, CITH, though it is often described as a custom that is rejected only by so-called "rad trads", it is also rejected even by non-"rad trads", including "Novus Ordo" Catholics like Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Mother Angelica and Father Benedict Groeschel. They believe, as I do, that ending Communion in the hand and restoring the universal custom in the Latin Rite of Communion on the tongue is all about restoring a sense of the sacred among the faithful and about safeguarding the Eucharist from ongoing abuses (diocesan priests have personally told me horror stories when it comes to CITH and the abuses associated with it).

This is also not about East vs. West. Some CITH advocates will often cite examples in the Eastern Rite where the practice of CITH is maintained. This is a poor argument because as it is wrong to impose Latin Rite customs on the Eastern Rite so too is it wrong to impose Eastern Rite customs on the Latin Rite. The Eastern Catholics were greatly offended centuries ago when Latin Rite Catholics tried to impose their customs unto the Eastern Rite Catholics. This is often condemned by the East and described by scholars by the derogatory word (at least to the East), "latinization".

This composition is not about judging the spirituality of persons who prefer to receive CITH. They may be holy and humble, but the practice itself is wrong, especially when compared to how it was practiced in the early days of the Church when Catholics had to go through a ceremonial washing of the hands as Bishop Scheinder, a Patristic scholar, has often explained! They did not simply receive Jesus in their hands, shove Him in their mouths and then hurry off to their pews or head out of the Church before Mass has concluded as so many do today.

Communion on the tongue, on the other hand, has always increased reverence and it has always protected the Eucharist from abuse. This composition will prove the latter and former from the perspective of theology and history.

Whenever a person raises objections to the custom of Communion in the hand (CITH) he or she is often attacked by some people who claim that to even question this custom is heretical or a radical sign of disobedience. In fact, one person reacted to an article posted on the Catholic News Agency website by calling objections to CITH "extremist Catholicism" even though Communion on the tongue has long been considered the norm of the Church and CITH only the exception (that is, the exception only in cases when a priest is not available such as during times of persecution. The persecution of the early Church is one example when this exception took place for grave reasons).

To put this in proper context, it is important as a theologian to see precisely where this custom is placed among the Church's teachings so that those who oppose CITH will be properly perceived by their critics.

The Church makes a four-way distinction as far as the Church's teachings and disciplines are concerned. These four levels of what the Church teaches on matters of faith, morals and discipline assists theologians to make a proper distinction among the Church's teachings and the levels of assent owed to each teaching and custom by the faithful with dogma, of course, or any De fide statement being the highest level of assent that Catholics must believe to be members in good standing with God and His Church, the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Communion in the hand is not among any of the three levels that require a high form of assent. It is only considered a level four custom. Level four customs concern matters of discipline which can often be incorrect and in need of reform or rejection. Catholics are permitted according to Canon Law to question level four customs and to respectfully address their concerns to the Holy Father and the Bishops. For a thorough understanding of this topic, please click here.

Issues like CITH and altar girls are especially troublesome because they first began as acts of disobedience (that is, they were never approved yet bishops and priests were implementing these abuses within their local churches against the practice of the Church) and so it is important for the Church to put an end to these abuse to correct the current mindset that disobedience leads to approval and is therefore a good that must be safeguarded. The Church teaches truth in union with the Way, and the Truth and the Life who is Jesus our Lord and Savior.

In my opinion, one of the many problems in the Church today is the fact that there are so many priests and lay people who think they are "experts" on theological and liturgical issues that they take it upon themselves to impose faulty reasoning on others to defend the custom of CITH. For example, Catholics often quote a partial statement by St. Cyril of Jerusalem> on Communion in the hand even though the full context of his citation is very strange and it has been considered as inauthentic by some scholars (although it is certainly true that some of the Church Fathers, including those who are canonized, have made one or two theological blunders during their lifetime, but these blunders do not reflect the primary thought of these great scholars). Click here for more information on this topic.

It is too bad some people in the Church who are not scholars think they have a right to defend Communion in the hand by distorting its temporary purpose in the early Church and the teachings of the Fathers who supposedly favored CITH. They totally take the teachings of the Fathers out of context to defend a rare exception to the rule. When they cite a Church Father who supposedly favored CITH they will go so far as to claim that these teachings are infallible because the Church would never canonize someone whose writings contain errors. It is entirely wrong to think that the Church canonizes saints because she agrees with everything the saints say in their writings. As stated earlier, even the saints were known to make a few theological blunders every now and then even in their official writings. Some of their statements on the Immaculate Conception is one example. He is not among the Fathers of the Church, but Saint Vincent Ferrer once defended, albeit unknowingly, a false Pope! People who have personal experience in debates with Catholics who reject the Divine Mercy devotion know very well that the anti-Divine Mercy crowd will routinely cite alleged errors in St. Faustina's Diary and Catholics like "pascendi", formerly of the AngelQueen discussion forum, have been known to respond by citing examples of a few saints and blesseds whose writings also contain some flaws.

One Church Father who is often cited by the pro-CITH crowd is Saint Basil (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, who considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93). This is one fact that is never mentioned by anyone who cites St. Basil out of context.

This article mentions St. Cyril and St. Basil in several places: Click here As does this article: Click here

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf raises a couple of interesting points on this topic here

It is also perplexing to see Catholics who overlook recent concerns by some Novus Ordo bishops concerning CITH, including a Vatican approved book written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a Patristic scholar, who condemns CITH and encourages Communion on the tongue as the proper tradition of the Church, i.e., Communion on the tongue has always been considered the norm. Click here to see an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Furthermore, a common yet faulty defense in favor of CITH is based on the "particles" of the Eucharist and the authority that is usually cited is St. Thomas Aquinas:

This is a gross distortion of the Angelic Doctor's teaching. He does not have in mind CITH at all. The saint is warning against becoming too "scrupulous" as far as the particles are concerned without saying that the particles themselves should not be treated with reverent care. Where does Aquinas say that the particles should be disregarded??? He certainly would agree with the Church who has always raised awareness concerning the treatment of the particles by the fact that the use of a Paten became a standard custom during the reception of holy Communion and priests always were taught as one of the rubrics of the Traditional Latin Mass that they must keep their thumb and index finger together from the Consecration until they wash their hands after Holy Communion [at the time when the sacred vessels are cleansed]. Need proof? Click here and see the entry titled "Ablution". In fact, even in the document that permitted CITH, Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969,there is this citation: 5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. And a few years later, this citation was mentioned in another document (which received Papal approval)...SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis, on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973: AAS 65 (1973) 264-271; Not 9 (1973) 157-164. 3? On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.

To put this in context, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about Priests and CITH:

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest minds the Church has ever known, writes the following regarding the Blessed Sacrament: "Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

As Michael Davies observes, “Unless we are to believe that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church for 1,000 years [the 1,000 year period from the time of the 10^th Century, when Communion in the hand was forbidden], we must accept the fact that, under His guidance, a tradition evolved that only the consecrated hands of a priest could touch the Host; we have the witness of St. Thomas Aquinas that, by the 13th century, it was firmly established that not even a deacon could do so under normal circumstances.” (Privilege of the Ordained, p. 16)

Nota Bene: the above portion of this thread will be edited later when time becomes more available to the writer. The edited feature will contain several more citations and examples and corrections as far as grammar is concerned.

-------------------

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only

Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father's reasoning is simple: "We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God." (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. "Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today" (May 22, 2008)

The pope's action is in accord with the Church's 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing the spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

Kneeling also coincides with the Church's centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. "To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist." (Council of Trent) This teaching is beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica: "Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament."

It is for reason that Pope Paul VI in his May 1969 pastoral letter to the world's bishops reaffirmed the Church's teaching on the reception of Communion, stating that: "This method on the tongue must be retained." (Memoriale Domini) This came in response to the bishops of Holland who started Communion in the hand in defiance of the centuries old decree from the Council of Rouen (650 A.D.) where this practice was condemned as sacrilegious. "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths." To date this prohibition has never been overturned legally.

Today Communion in the hand is carried on illegally and has become a major tool of the enemy to destory the Faith throughout the world. For this practice serves no other purpose than to warp our conception of Jesus Christ and nourish a contempt for the sacred mysteries. It's no wonder St. Basil referred to Communion in the hand as "a grave fault."

That is to say, Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have 'abuse' problems today it is because we're abusing the Sacrament - it's backfiring on us!

Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are now given easy access to come into the Church and take the Host so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They crush the Host under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we assist it with our casual practice? Amongst themselves the satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we do nothing to stop it?

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of abuse and we as members of Christ are called upon to assist him. For your encouragement we include the following quotation from Cardinal Llovera, the new prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments speaking to Life Site News on July 22, 2009: "It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict's emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling."

Also worth considering is the recent decree from Cardinal Caffarra, the Archbishop of Bologna Italy, forbidding the practice of Communion in the hand: "Many cases of profanation of the Eucharist have occurred, profiting by the possibility to receive the consecrated Bread on one's palm of the hand... Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue." (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

Technically all bishops and clergy are bound to follow the Holy Father's directive on this issue, but in the meantime the faithful are not obliged to wait for the approval of their bishop in order to kneel for God. The directives of the Holy Father are not subject to the veto or scrutiny of the bishops and therefore all pastors and laity have a right and duty to put these directives into practice for the edification of their communities.

Our Lady's Workers of Southern California

jmj4today@att.net

UPDATE (13 July 2009):

Cardinal Caffara of Bologna: in certain churches only Communion on the tongue

Bishop Athanasius Schneider calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent (VIDEO)

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Historical argument favors Communion on the tongue

Dominus Est – It Is the Lord
Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Originally published in Italian by the Vatican Press, this book offers readers insights into the sacrality which ought to surround the distribution and reception of Holy Communion Relying on accurate history and good theology, the author makes a plea for a return to distributing the Eucharist to kneeling communicants on the tongue — the practice now restored at papal liturgies by Pope Benedict XVI. The book comes with the endorsement of the two highest officials in the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion during the liturgy and Communion on the Tongue

Kneeling for communion and communion on the tongue:
"Profound meaning," says Cardinal Cañizares Llovera

Peruvian Cardinal bans practice of Communion in the Hand

-------------

Recent News from Rome: Pope prefers Communion on the tongue, Msgr. Marini says

Excerpt:

"In interview published in the Wednesday edition of L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Benedict’s new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, Monsignor Guido Marini, says he believes that people receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue will become common practice at the Vatican...."

Rethinking Communion in the Hand by Jude A. Huntz

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW
March 1997

Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence?

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true that one may receive "on the hand," with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue.

Even as we begin, it might immediately be objected: Communion in the hand is fully approved by the Church, and it is disloyal and disrespectful and therefore not allowed even to begin this discussion. In answer to that objection, let us begin with the legal aspects of the question.

1. The legal status of the two methods

It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an "indult," or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.

Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Communion: on the tongue. Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

It must be further noted that the relevant legislation "strongly urges and exhorts" us all to receive Communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as "more reverent." One will search in vain for any encouragement of Communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful!

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, II)

In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which in each and every case accompanied the actual indult (L'instruction "Memoriale Domini"), the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

2. The fragments . . .

If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind:

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. [Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis).

The Roman Catechism put it this way:

Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.

Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don't care, or don't know, etc.

To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes.

For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: "What about the fragments?"

3. Clericalism?

Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own "Eucharistic minister" and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

4. "Communion in the hand" is a misnomer

To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved.

5. Some Scriptural considerations . . .

In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows:

And [the Lord] said to me: . . . "But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat ["And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book" - Vulgate]. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezek. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV).

It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened his mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven.

In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it . . . . But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock." "I will fill it," not "fill it yourselves."

Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

Again, it is certainly eminently scriptural to refrain from touching something as a sign of reverence (and not only scriptural, but even universally human). In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, it was absolutely forbidden to touch it, under pain of death. Even when it was "necessary" to do so, as it seemed to one unfortunate ark-bearer, it was still forbidden. And the fellow paid the supreme price for his temerity in reaching out to steady the ark: "When they came to the floor of Machon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and He struck him for his rashness and he died there before the ark of God" (II Sam. 6:6,7). We have greater than the Ark of the Covenant here.

6. The Last Supper

But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus' time and which is still the case: one feeds one's guests with one's own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas's hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as "Friend" the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, "giving himself by his own hand."

7. Take and eat . . .

Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, "Take and eat"? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful "took" and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

8. The provenance of Communion in the hand

The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or "Reformation." Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a "false archaeologism": an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ's faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the "liturgical establishment" in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least "mis-information" was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear.

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

9. Was it universal?

The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to "make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]." This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one's hands, since just as one wouldn't let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.

In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the "elevation"-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).

It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.

The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to "take and eat," and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone's mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope's manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?

We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one's hand.

So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one's own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. "It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon" (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.

After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the apostles.

Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths." The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Of course, the promoters of "Communion in the hand" generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: "Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen."

There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: "Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them." This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint's successor who wrote it.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.

10. Who promotes Communion in the hand?

(This argument might be accused of the logical fallacy of "guilt by association." But that argument is not necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers) who promote Communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of "the idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the ultimate." Well, these are the promoters of Communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional manner of reception. Why?

11. Communion in the hand is too casual

What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our "culture," it is food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only with them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

12. To possess and control God?

It is consoling to hear our Creator say to us, "I have carved you in the palm of My hand." It is of primary importance to recall that "He made us, we belong to him." But what is Communion in the hand saying at a symbolic level?

Often something is placed in our hands as a sign of ownership and control. The consummation of the purchase of a new home or automobile is in the handing over of the keys. We might even toss them in the air and triumphantly catch them. But should we take him (unnecessarily) into our hands whom the earth and the sea cannot contain?

13. Authentic inter-ritual and ecumenical considerations

If we glance around the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask, "how do they receive Holy Communion?" If the present writer is not wrong, they do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after.

We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favor of Communion in the hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to be "childish" (or when intinction is criticized).

And if we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask ourselves: "How do they receive Communion?" Further, is true Christian unity promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a significant part is Communion in the hand?

14. Its fruits . . .

We must be rigorously honest with ourselves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, greater love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord's Body into our hands?

At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgical reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer, at least, that Communion in the hand must share part of the blame for the decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

15. The Pope . . . and Mother Teresa of Calcutta

It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And he has even refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this last is the time when the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d'Estaing approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched. He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth. (Actually, she need not have been astonished; explicit instructions had been given that the Pope would not give Communion in the hand.)

The Missionaries of Charity have no qualms about touching Christ in the guise of the poor, lifting him out of the gutters, and cleaning his maggot infested wounds. They choose, however, not to touch him in his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. All of Mother Teresa's sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue.

Mother Teresa herself evidently regards the practice in a somewhat negative light:

I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don't know why-"Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."4

Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch it. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist" (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

A practical course of action ought to be undertaken or these reflections would be next to useless. A minimal thing to do would be to broadcast far and wide the legal status of Communion in the hand and the urgent desire of the Church that we in fact not receive Communion in that manner. A thorough and well understood catechesis in the integral Catholic Faith should lead to a rejection of the practice. In particular, we should include a renewed and due emphasis on the Divinity of Christ, the burning love of his Sacred Heart for us, the Real Presence and the adoration due it, and the need for reparation.

Adult converts and catechumens and children preparing for First Communion have habitually been denied in many places even knowing about the traditional manner of receiving the Lord, let alone being allowed to choose that method. Without coercion, they should gently be guided towards what is objectively superior and a very important safeguard for their delicate faith.

Priests should refuse "Communion in the hand" unless it is manifestly being done with great care and correctness, including astute attention to the fragments. They should question their penitents as to their manner of receiving the Sacred Host, and, if the penitent receives in the hand, he should be encouraged to at least think about a healthy change for the better.

We have of course not argued that Communion in the hand is in itself evil or sacrilegious. And, together with the Pope we acknowledge that it can be done with reverence and care. But this practice has been the occasion of great harm to the Church and to souls. It has expedited "indifference, outrages and sacrileges" towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

It is implicated in the manifest lessening of faith in the Real Presence which we see in our times.

Reparation is needed. In addition to heartfelt prayer, let us make every effort, according to the light which the Lord has given us, and according to our state in life, and our resources, to contribute to the day when it will only be a reference in the history books.

--------------------------

1 Sess. 13, c. 8: "Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained." In sacramentale autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a Sacerdotibus communionem acciperent; Sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos communicarent: qui mos, tamquam ex traditione Apostolica descendens, jure, ac merito retinere debet.

2 "Hoc enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur." Serm. 91.3.

3 Just as if I were to say, "It is not a grave fault to miss Mass on a Sunday, if one has to take care of sick person." This implies (what we already know) that when there is no such excusing cause, it would be a grave fault.

4 Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.

+ + +

Do it yourself Sacraments? by Fr. Frederick Hauser

Communion in the hand has played a part in making the priesthood less important in the eyes of many of the faithful.

Do you look at something you have seen hundreds of times and really see it for the first time? Perhaps it is a bush that has been dormant all winter and all of a sudden it's ablaze with color, or a child who you have known for years all of a sudden is an adolescent. Very often we need someone to point these things out to us or we will never see then with our mind's eye. That sort of thing happened to me recently when I read an article on Communion in the hand in which the author pointed out what should have been obvious all along: the person who receives in the hand is his own minister of the Eucharist.

Now one thing the Church has always stressed is that a sacrament is administered by a duly authorized minister. That is usually a bishop, priest or deacon, or when needed, an extraordinary minister of Communion who is a religious or a lay person. Matrimony, of course, is always administered by the couple to each other. But when a person received Communion in the hand he administers the sacrament to himself. This is not even done by the ministers of the Mass; only the celebrant or concelebrant gives Communion to himself. The assisting ministers, be they clerical or lay, have the sacrament administered to them. Canon 910 of the Code of Canon Law states: "The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ's faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 #3."

Canon 230 #3 speaks of using lay ministers when the ordinary ministers are not available. To show the incongruity of a person administering holy communion to himself, let's apply it to the other sacraments.

In the sacrament of Baptism, the priest or deacon administers the sacrament by pouring the water on the head of the recipient while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Could you envision a priest handing the shell of water to the adult to be baptized and watching him pour the water over his own head while saying the form "I baptize me, etc."? Or in the confessional, after the penitent has confessed his sins, the priest handling him the formula while the penitent says, "I absolve me from my sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."? Can you, in your wildest fantasy, see a bishop handing the container of Holy Chrism and the formula for Confirmation to the candidate and watch him anoint himself?

And so on with Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders. The idea is ridiculous and theologically unsound, and, of course, the sacrament would be both both invalid and illicit. But we are doing this every time we give a person Communion in the hand. But, you might say, there is a difference and that is that Christ is already present in the Eucharist. That is true, but isn't He already present in the other sacraments? In the person of the priest? The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed that the priest acts "in persona Christi" when he offers Mass or administers the sacraments. Granted Christ's presence in the Eucharist is substantial while in the priest it's spiritual but the presence is not the conferring of the sacrament. A person entering a Catholic church is in the presence of Christ but, by that fact, does not receive Holy Communion. And the reception of the Eucharist is not in its being handed to the recipient, it is in the eating of the consecrated Bread. One administers the sacrament by feeding the recipient, by placing Christ on his tongue which is the beginning of the act of eating. By placing It in his hand, he feeds himself and, therefore, administers the sacrament to himself. This is an action unknown and unheard of in any other sacrament.

However, still another anomaly occurs: the sacrament conferred by the person to himself is done without a formula of words. Every sacrament is conferred with a specific form. When the celebrant or concelebrant gives Communion to himself he uses the form: "May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life." When a person receives on the tongue the form is,
The Body of Christ. Amen." But when the person who has received in the hand receives the sacrament by placing it on his own tongue he says nothing! No formula of words is used. Yet every sacrament is composed of matter and form. The matter in the Holy Eucharist is the Body of Christ, but there is no form here.

What of receiving under the form of consecrated Wine? Again the person could not take the chalice and drink from it without being his own sacramental minister. The priest, or other duly authorized minister, would have to place the chalice on the lips of the recipient and gently pour the Precious Blood into his mouth. Of course, this would not be a very dignified or sanitary way to proceed, and it would be better for the person to receive under the one form. Of course he could receive by intinction when the host is dipped in the Precious Blood and placed on his tongue but that also seems a bit unsanitary and risks the spilling of a drop of the Blood. Ironically, our bishops have forbidden the custom of a person dipping his own Host in the Precious Blood and consuming it, saying that the Blood is not administered to him but he administers It to himself. If they were consistent they would see he is administering the Host to himself also. Note that in the Eastern Church, the cube of consecrated Bread is soaked in the Precious Blood and then dropped on the tongue of the recipient with a golden spoon. Upon reflection I can envision the many churches where everyone receives Communion in the hand. Since everyone is his own minister of the sacrament, it would be simpler if a number of ciboria containing the Sacred Hosts and a number of chalices containing the Precious Blood were placed on tables in convenient places in the church. Then each person could minister to himself which he is actually doing now. It would save the congregation of ordinary and extraordinary ministers who, in reality, are not administering the sacrament.

From the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th century the Church has administered Holy Communion only under the species of Bread and only on the tongue of the recipient. It was the Protestant "reformers" who in denying the priesthood of the ordained, insisted that all shared equally in the priesthood of Christ and all should receive communion under both the forms of bread and wine and should communicate themselves. The Protestant notion has crept back into the Church by giving Communion under both species and in the hand. It has helped blur the distinction between the priesthood of the laity and that of the ordained minister. I believe it has also played a part in making the priesthood less important in the eyes of many of the faithful. But that has been spoken of before. The important point to consider is that sacraments are administered by another. We cannot administer a sacrament to ourselves. That is not an option we can extend to anyone. When this is done in the Holy Eucharist it is in clear violation of Canon 910 and is, therefore, illicit. We must get back to administering Holy Communion on the tongue and under the form of Bread alone. The sacrament is received in the eating of the Body of Christ not in the holding of It in one's hand. Our Blessed Lord said "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." May we receive this great sacrament reverently and licitly in accord with the laws of the Church.

Reverend Frederick Heuser is the pastor of St. James Parish in Kenosha, Wis. He has a B.A. in philosophy and an M.Div. from St. Francis Seminary in Milwaukee and an M.A. in speech from Marquette University. After ordination, he taught in a high school, and then became Associate Director of the Catholic Family Life Program of Milwaukee before assuming his present position. His last article in HPR appeared in January 1995.

+ + +

LINK: Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds by Michael Davies

+ + +

Some Considerations on Communion on the Hand by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald, Parish Priest

Historical Considerations on Communion on the Hand

Link to Original

Here are some patristic and historical considerations on our theme,as well as an additional aspect.

Was it Universal?

The history of communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up to date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm. A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the Faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]”. This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord. According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an over emphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of His sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is. In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation” [so the mainstream treatment of this period continues] and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of). It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and sad to say was imposed. The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the Faithful to “take and eat”, and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the Apostles: communion in the hand. It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving It from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.[1] A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers, does not support the assertion that communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of communion on the tongue. Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion. Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” [2]. The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established fact. A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice ( according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion. These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonablely say that communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving communion on the tongue is a medieval invention? We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the Faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the Faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert, where they would not have the services of a priest, and, would not want to give up the practice of daily communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand. So St. Basil(330-379)says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, our emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault [3]. The Saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion. In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all. After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the Apostles. Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

What about St. Cyril? Of course, the promoters of “communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil. Dr. Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.” There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also on to proposes the following:

“Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body... “When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?)recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it. It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favour of communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth= century. Clericalism? Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even a priest, could do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his own hand: he received on the tongue form another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself. When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church. This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes

[1] sess. 13, c. 8: “Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” In sacramentale autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a Sacerdotibus communionem acciperent; Sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos communicarent: qui mos, tamquam ex traditione Apostolica descendens, jure, ac merito retinere debet.
[2] “Hoc enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur.” Serm. 91.3
[3] Just as if I were to say, “It is not a grave fault to miss mass on a Sunday, if one has to take care of sick person.” This implies (what we already know) that when there is no such excusing cause, it would be a grave fault.

VALID OBJECTIONS TO COMMUNION IN THE HAND

There time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true, that one may receive “on the hand”, with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue. Here are twelve reasons why.

1. The legal status of the two methods It is the law of the universal Church, in the Latin Rite, (to which most of us belong) that we receive communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult”, or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission. Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving communion: on the tongue. Thus, the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal. It must be further noted that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more reverent”. One will search in vain for any encouragement of communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful! In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behaviour but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, 11) In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which accompanied the actual indult in each and every case, the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautiions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

2. The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current practice of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case, that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and His Church, and of the reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical= authority. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s Faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion. When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

3. The Fragments... If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind: The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis). The Roman Catechism put it this way: Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.... the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.=20 Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc., etc. For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to communion in the hand: “What about the Fragments?”

4. Who promotes communion in the hand? (This argument might be accused of the logical fallacy of “guilt by association”. But that argument is not necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers) who promote communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of “the idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the= ultimate”. Well, these are the promoters of communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional manner of reception. Why?

5. “Communion in the hand” is a misnomer. To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved. It has been suggested that this practice ought to be renamed as “common manual self-communication”. 6. Communion in the hand is too casual. What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our “culture”, it is food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only withe them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

7. Its fruits... We must be rigorously honest with oursleves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, graeter love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord’s Body nto our hanads? At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgicla reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer, at least, that communion in the hand must share part of the blame fo rthe decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

8. Was it universal? To show that communion in the hand was once a universal practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: this text is of dubious origin. In fact, it is more likely from Bishop so and so, a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have texts of Leo the Great... and Gregory the great... and St. Basil, as well as...

9. The Last Supper But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops. But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practised in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did He place this wet morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend”, the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own hand”.

10. Scriptural Considerations... In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows: And [the Lord] said to me: ... “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it ... And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat [“And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” =97 Vulgate]. And he= said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV). It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened His mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven. In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us,=20 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it ... But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “Iwill fill it,” not “fill it yourselves”. Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

11. Authentic Inter-ritual and Ecumenical Considerations If we glance around the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask, “how do they receive Holy Communion?”. If the present writer is not wrong, they do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after. We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favour of communion in the hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to “childish”. And If we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask ourselves: “How do they receive Communion?” Further, is true Christian unity promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a significant part is communion in the= hand.

12. The Pope... and Mother Teresa of Calcutta It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until recently in the Vatican Basilica. All of Mother Teresa’s sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue. And it has never been denied, and implicity reaffirmed that Mother Teresa, when asked what worried her most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”

Conclusion

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch It. “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald, Parish Priest

+ + +

The following article by Dietrich von Hildebrand, entitled "Communion in the hand should be rejected," was published November 8, 1973:

There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular. The ineffable mystery of the bodily presence of Christ in the consecrated host calls for a deeply reverent attitude. (To take the Body of Christ in our unanointed hands—just as if it were a mere piece of bread is something in itself deeply irreverent and detrimental for our faith.) Dealing with this unfathomable mystery as if we were merely dealing with nothing but another piece of bread, something we naturally do every day with mere bread, makes the act of faith in the real bodily presence of Christ more difficult. Such behavior toward the consecrated host slowly corrodes our faith in the bodily presence and fosters the idea that it is only a symbol of Christ. To claim that taking the bread in our hands increases the sense of the reality of the bread is an absurd argument. The reality of the bread is not what matters—that is also visible for any atheist. But the fact that the host is in reality the Body of Christ—the fact that transubstantiation has taken place—this is the theme which must be stressed.

Arguments for Communion in the hand based upon the fact that this practice can be found among the early Christians is not really valid. They overlook the dangers and the inadequacy of re-introducing the practice today. Pope Pius XII spoke in very clear and unmistakable terms against the idea that one could re-introduce today customs from the times of the catacombs. Certainly we should try to renew in the souls of Catholics today the spirit, fervor, and heroic devotion found in the faith of the early Christians and the many martyrs from among their ranks. But simply adopting their customs is something else again; customs can assume a completely new function today, and we cannot and should not simply try to re-introduce them.

In the days of the catacombs the danger of desacralization and irreverence which threatens today was not present. The contrast between the saeculum [secular] and the holy Church was constantly in the minds of Christians. Thus a custom which was not danger in those times can constitute a grave pastoral danger in our day.

Consider how St. Francis regarded the extraordinary dignity of the priest which consists exactly in the fact that he is allowed to touch the Body of Christ with his anointed hands. St. Francis said: “If I were to meet at the same time a saint from heaven and a poor priest, I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence, for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good far surpasses everything that is human.’”

Someone may say: but did not St. Tarcisius distribute Communion though he was no priest? Surely no one was scandalized because he touched the consecrated host with his hands. And in an emergency, a layman is today allowed to give Communion to others.

But this exception for emergency cases is not something which implies a lack of respect for the holy Body of Christ. It is a privilege justified by emergency—which should be accepted with trembling heart (and should remain a privilege, reserved only for an emergency).

But there is a great difference between this case of touching the consecrated host with our unanointed hands and that of taking Communion in the hand as a matter of course—on all occasions. To be allowed to touch the consecrated host with unanointed hands is in no way presented to the faithful as an awe-inspiring privilege. It becomes the normal form of receiving Communion. And this fosters an irreverent attitude and thus corrodes faith in the real bodily presence of Christ.

It is taken for granted that everyone receives the consecrated host in his hand. The layman to whom the great privilege is granted for special reasons has to touch the host, of course. But there is no reason for receiving Communion in the hand; only an immanent spirit of paltry familiarity with Our Lord.

It is incomprehensible why some insist on a way of receiving Communion which opens the door to all sorts of accidental and even intentional abuses.

First, there is a much greater possibility that some particles of the consecrated host may fall. In former times the priest watched with great care whether or not some particles of the host fell, in which case he would immediately take greatest care that the sacred particles would be reverently picked up and consumed by himself. And now without any apparent reason, many want to expose the consecrated host to this danger in a much greater degree than before—this at a time when the host is made more and more to resemble bread and to crumble more easily.

Second, and this is an incomparably worse problem, the danger exists that a communicant, instead of putting the consecrated host into his mouth, will place it in his pocket or otherwise conceal and not consume it. This unfortunately has happened in these days of revived Satanism. Consecrated hosts are known to have been sold for blasphemous uses. In London, the price is said to be 30 pounds for one, which reminds us of the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas sold the Body of Our Lord.

Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil “who wanders about seeking whom he may devour”? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses of the consecrated host will not take place?

The greater our respect, and the greater our love, the greater our realization of the ineffable holiness of the Eucharist—the greater will be our horror of its being abused; and our eagerness to protect it from all possible blasphemous abuses.

Why—for God's sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.

+ + +

Communion on the tongue eventually became the universal norm in the Church because of "growing respect for the Eucharist" as Father Joseph Jungmann cited in his book "The Mass of the Roman Rite" and it became the norm after times of persecution ended.

+ + +

On November 1st, 1997, at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is the response of Fr. Hardon

"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand, Communion in the hand began, in the hand, with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the [U.S.] bishops' conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

- Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion

+ + +

There is ample testimony to the fact that the liturgical "renewal" has been accompanied not simply by a decline in Mass attendance, but by a decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. It is not only traditionalists who testify to this.

Cardinal Heenan, in common with so many bishops, gave way on the question of allowing lay ministers of Holy Communion. On February 2, 1974, he used the occasion of commissioning a group of these ministers to lament the decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament:

"At one time it would have been unthinkable for anyone without anointed hands to touch the Sacred Species. In this century there has been a steady diminution of outward signs of respect for sacred objects. When I was a boy there was a scale of values. It was understood that anyone could handle a ciborium or monstrance, but only the priest could touch the chalice because it was consecrated. Until recent times we priests kissed each sacred vestment as we put it on, we genuflected before and after touching the Sacred Host. The new rubrics abolished the kissing and reduced genuflections to a minimum. . . . the loss of outward marks of respect lead the simple-minded to lose their sense of reverence. Some have begun to ignore the Blessed Sacrament. They do not genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament and do not kneel in adoration when they come into church."

+ + +

Pope Paul VI: "It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

Consilium, 1965: “The Holy Father [Pope Paul VI] … does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world.” (October 12, 1965 letter of the “Consilium” to Bernard Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands)

Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise (San Luis, Argentina): “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful…. Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”

Bishop Bernard D. Stewart (Sandurst, Australia): “Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue. Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether such people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ. One must pass over in appalled silence the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses. Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner [on the tongue] is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.”

Cardinal Carberry: “We are facing again another struggle in our Bishops’ Conference in May [1977]. It has been decided, for the third time now, that we have to talk about Communion in the hand…. So I would be grateful beyond words for any way that you could possibly help by prayer. I’m thinking, I know I can use a great deal of canonical reasons and law and the rest of it, but you don’t get very far with these. People don’t seem to want to listen to this kind of reasoning. But some kind of reasoning that would reach into the hearts of the Bishops, and to place it, I hope, on the basis of danger of irreverence to the Most Blessed Sacrament which is growing and growing and growing throughout our country. And if any of you have any reading matter on this, or any thoughts on how it could be presented; ways that it could be presented; ways that it could be presented before us, I would be so grateful to hear and receive any suggestions. And I pray most earnestly to our Most Blessed Mother that the beautiful prayer, ‘O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine’ might be an ejaculation of all of us who want to preserve the reverence and devotion by the traditional way of receiving Communion, which has the blessing of our Holy Father, the Pope.” (Cardinal Carberry, St. Louis, Missouri, March 12, 1977)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “… because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

Mother Teresa of Calcutta: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Dietrich von Hildebrand: "Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil who wanders about seeking whom he may devour'? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses to the consecrated host will not take place?"

Fr. John Hardon, SJ: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”

+ + +

The Catholic News Agency reported on October 4, 2005:

The interventions of the Prelates present at the synod during the first general congregations of the Synod on the Eucharist, indicated their concern of the trivialization of the sacrament within ecclesial communities.

On Monday, during his talk, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Cult and the Discipline of Sacraments, approached this Tuesday the theme of receiving communion in the mouth or in the hand, reminding how receiving the communion in the hand has led to abuses, “that could happen, and that already happened, like the use for satanic rituals, the auction on the Internet and other wrongs.”

The prelate didn’t propose an answer to this dilemma, but invited for “greater vigilance for celebrants, in order to ensure that it is consumed.

Msgr. Peter Kang, of Cheju (Korea), warned that the participation of children in the Eucharist is decreasing dramatically along with the age. The children that don’t come to Mass say that Mass is boring and not interesting. As well, adults say the same, and don’t feel motivated to participate.

Our priority is to justify and make grow the heart of the Catholics, their desire and aspiration to participate in the Eucharist. In order to transmit to the modern people the Eucharistic mystery, it is not sufficient to reinforce vigorously the rules and regulations of Eucharistic celebration

+ + +

The Catholic News Service reported on October 6, 2005:

It was not listed as a topic for discussion, but the question of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue received attention at the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist.

Cardinal Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia, was the first to raise the issue, telling the synod Oct. 3 that he thought Catholics should receive Communion on the tongue -- while kneeling. When communicants stand, Cardinal Pujats said, he feels like a dentist looking into their mouths.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Vatican's worship congregation, responded by saying that arguments could be made for both Communion practices, in the hand and on the tongue, according to information released by the Vatican. Ultimately, he said, it's up to bishops' conferences to decide what is best in each country, but he added that Communion in the hand needs better catechesis.

Cardinal Arinze said non-Catholics in particular sometimes fail to understand Communion in the hand. He related a story about one person who went up and received Communion and then took it home and kept the host in his scrapbook.

The cardinal added that Communion in the hand does make it easier for sacrilege against a consecrated host. He reminded bishops that a host reportedly received at a papal Mass in 1998 was put up for sale on eBay earlier this year before being withdrawn by the seller.

Speaking Oct. 4, Archbishop Jan Lenga of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, called Communion in the hand a "fad." He proposed that the Vatican issue a universal norm to gradually do away with it and return to Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

The archbishop said Muslims in his predominantly Islamic country consider it disrespectful to receive Communion in the hand while standing. He said Catholics could learn a lot from Orthodox Christians and Muslims about how to show reverence to God.

He added that Communion in the hand adds to the risk of host fragments breaking off and falling to the ground and to the risk of profaning the consecrated host.

One synod participant noted that objections to Communion in the hand were coming from bishops in Eastern Europe, where the liturgical changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council have been implemented only recently.

+ + +

The following excerpts are from the Pastoral Statement on the Manner of Distributing and Receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion (issued for the Diocese of Sandhurst, Australia, by the Most Reverend Bishop Bernard D. Stewart, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, 1976)

Decline and abolition [of Communion in the hand]

Communion by hand stayed in use for nearly nine centuries. Already earlier it had begun to grow less common when reservation of the Blessed Eucharist became limited to churches and administration of the Sacrament restricted to priests and deacons. It lost favor when the doctrine of the Real Presence was doubted or denied by a number of ecclesiastics.

To make clear that at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, though the outward appearances of taste, color and form remain, to inculcate that the Sacred Host is not ordinary bread; to foster a sense of reverence and adoration of Our Lord invisibly but actually present, Communicants were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands.

This major rubric should not be considered just a negative safeguard against error; it was a positive disposition to develop faith, adoration and humility in the communicant, as the Holy See has explicitly stated:

Later on, with a deepening understanding of the Truth of the Eucharistic Mystery, of its force, of the presence of Christ therein … with a driving sense of reverence for this Most Holy Sacrament and with a compelling attitude of humility in receiving it, the custom was established that the minister himself should place a Particle of the Consecrated Bread on the tongue of those receiving Communion (Instruction, Memorial of the Lord, May 29th, 1969).

For these reasons, Communion on the tongue, in use from ancient times, superseded Communion on the hand and become the only method of receiving the Blessed Eucharist, and so it has remained, sacred and unchanged, for more than a thousand years.

Four hundred years ago certain protesting sects of the West fell away from the total Eucharistic faith of the Catholic Church; they gave up the belief that at Mass the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Our Blessed Lord; they gave up adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; they abandoned the Mass and introduced a communion service by hand, standing or sitting….

Shocking Sacrileges

Doctrinal errors quickly produce practical abuses. The Holy See tells us that the irreverence's coming from faulty Eucharistic theology are many in number and spread through many places.

Numerous and widespread abuses have appeared, sometimes so serious that they cast doubts on the very Faith in the Real Presence, on the adoration and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament (Instruction on Worship of the Eucharist, May 15th, 1969).

There is ample evidence of consecrated Hosts being discarded into a bin; because, so it is said, “the Presence does not remain when the meal is finished”; sometimes these Hosts are re-consecrated. Priests are known to genuflect at the Communion but not at the Consecration; because, they hold, “Christ is present only at the meal”. Some have affirmed publicly that they do not genuflect before the Tabernacle; because “one does not adore a box”.

Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue.

Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ.

One must pass over in appalled silenced the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses.

Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.

When Faith in the Eucharist is deep and strong, acts of reparation for all these sins are made monthly on the first Friday and annually on the feast of the Sacred Heart.

Reprehensible neglect of Eucharistic Rubrics

When Faith wavers, reverence weakens and sacred ritual becomes a travesty. Actions, words and gestures designed to foster Eucharistic piety are set aside, and rubrics with no ecclesial authority have been put in their place, often to the indignation of right-minded people.

Without leave Tabernacles have been removed from their proper place on the altar (yet permission must be first obtained from the bishop); they have been perched precariously on columns or put in out of the way places (yet the rubrics require that they be positioned firmly in accessible places nobly adorned); the Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered in refectories, libraries, commons rooms of religious houses (yet it should be in the chapel, officially dedicated as it is to divine worship); people have been urged to stand around the altar (yet the Missal reserves this sanctuary area for ministers); the assembly has been invited to join in the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (yet the rubric restricts it to the priest); celebrants have divided the Sacred Host at the Consecration (whereas it should be done only at the Communion); it is taken for granted that it is obligatory to offer Mass facing the congregation (yet there is no such obligation); but the real recommendation to make an external act of adoration when receiving Holy Communion standing is frequently ignored, the religious significance of the sign of peace often yields to mundane or profane or romantic salutations; the latest hit tunes frequently replace sacred music; behavior in church sometimes reflects the conduct of the market place or coffee bar rather than that of a house of prayer.

The list makes painful reading, but not to everyone. People who approve these happenings are gladdened; those who disapprove feel offended. But everyone is astonished at the speed with which it happened. Only by looking back does one see the pattern of deed and omission which brought it about.

The impetus comes first from the heralds of new Eucharistic thinking, based, they claim, on Vatican II even though the Holy Father rejected a lot of it. The Pope also said that ideas calculated to upset the faithful were deliberately propagated by writing and by word—and that includes the current technique of aid-texts, seminars and workshops. Once the ideas were sown, the desire for experimentation followed; but on a limited, controlled scale, it was said. Instead the gates were opened wide by a rush to do “what everyone else is doing”.

One might ask why it is not stopped by those who have the capacity or the authority to stop it. The will to stop it might have been weakened by human respect, especially when those who do try become isolated and denigrated....

Comparison between the two methods

From what has been said especially by the papal and official documents quoted above, the following considerations clearly emerge.

First, the traditional method is a matter of most ancient customary law which holds in every diocese of the Church; the new method is an exception from this law and is lawful only with permission granted for proper reasons.

Second, the Holy Father earnestly exhorts all bishops, priests and faithful to keep to the traditional method; but in order to help Episcopal conferences to discharge their difficult pastoral office he permits the new method under certain circumstances. (Where these conditions are judged by the bishops not to exist the new method is not permitted, as it is not permitted for example in Italy, the United States, Eire.)

Third, the new method was introduced illegally; an indult was given in places where it had become an accomplished fact and could not be easily removed.

Fourth, no Bishop may disallow the traditional method in his diocese, but even with the papal indult any bishop may disallow Communion in the hand; he may withhold the permission from certain people and certain places; if given it may be withdrawn, as has happened.

Fifth, one may promote the traditional manner; for, it is normal and customary: one does not promote the exceptional method. [emphasis added]

+ + +

Sermon of the opening mass of the 8th colloquium. Mgr Juan Rodolfo Laise, emeritus bishop of San Luis

Dear CIEL friends,

It is, as always, a great joy to be with you again on the occasion of your Annual Congress. This year you have chosen the theme of The Sacred. It seems to me that that is of the highest importance. Nowadays everything is desacralized. ‘God is dead’, they say; but if God is dead, so is man.

As you can see, man is worth nothing in contemporary society. From birth to death, his life is in constant danger. Will he be allowed to be born? Will he be helped to die more quickly than Providence intended? And between those times, what will happen to him in a world where people talk more about war than about peace? Yes, my dear brothers and sisters, if man no longer counts for anything, that is because he no longer sees anything as sacred.

I believe that your association has a mission of very great importance in promoting the traditional Roman Rite, which is, in its own field of liturgy, the most sublime manifestation of the sacred; through its rich & beautiful ornaments; through its language, which does not belong to the everyday; through all the signs and symbols which clearly show that, beneath all that, there is a reality which must be respected and adored. The desacralization of the liturgy, the banalization of the rites, the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand have all contributed greatly and in a culpable manner to the desacralization of the ‘Holy of Holies’: God, and the worship which mankind must give Him by their obedience to the first three of the Ten Commandments.

May the Most Holy Virgin, who bore in her sacred womb the Word of God – she who is entirely pure and entirely consecrated to her Lord – may she give you, firstly to you priests, a true sense of the sacred, a true awareness of what you are and of what you do; and to you, dear faithful, the grace of approaching the manifestations of God in the liturgy, as Moses did, with reverence and awe.

+ + +

A BRAVE BISHOP!

When the Holy See gave the hierarchy of Argentina permission to introduce Communion in the hand, the Bishop of the Diocese of San Luis, Juan Rodoffo Laise, decided not to permit the practice in his diocese. He wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for confirmation. The reply read:

Since you have judged unnecessary the application of the said per-mission for the territory of the Diocese of San Luis, your Excellency has wished to consult this Congregation of whether by this decision you have acted in derogation of ecclesial communion with the dioceses that have received the indult.

As to this, you are informed by this dicastery that an attentive study of the documents of the Holy See in this matter shows clearly that you, in deciding to maintain immutable the tradition of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth, have acted in conformity with the law and therefore have not broken with ecclesial communion. In truth, Your Excellency has done no more than fulfill the duty demanded of every bishop by the instruction De Modo Sanctam.

Dear God! Bless us with more Bishops like Laise.

+ + +

Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina banned Communion in the hand in his diocese. Below are several quotes from his book, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, explaining his decision to ban this sacrilegious practice:

"Although the Church recognizes legitimate change, it nonetheless considers that 'the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof'. We must keep in mind that reversing the course of a development and returning to a previous phase, is not a development but rather a corruption.

"Therefore, to say that 'Communion in the hand is not a novelty', that 'we only do it as the Apostles, as the first disciples did, and as the Christians did for almost one thousand years' (The Living Bread, p. 15) with the purpose of 'dispelling fears', is not a valid argument. It is not true that we will 'only' do it as the Apostles did. As we have just seen, the return to an ancient manner is not in itself a reason for tranquility. Even less so when that manner was first abandoned and finally forbidden, due to its imperfection."

"Retired from his Vatican positions, Archbishop Bugnini, in his work The Liturgical Reform, gives us abundant data on the history of the introduction of that practice, of which we summarize the principal parts: starting with the liturgical reform, the practice of giving Communion in the hand of the faithful was abusively introduced in some nations (Germany, Holland, Belgium, France). From the beginning there was a firm opposition from the Holy See. On October 12, 1965, the 'Consilium' wrote to Cardinal Alfrink: 'preserve the traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion [...] the Holy Father ... does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world.' 'But--says Bugnini--these and other claims had no effect.'

"Because the Bishops found it difficult to contain the introduced practice, the consultations continued. On May 8, 1968, the Sacred Congregation of Rites had answered 'non expedire' [trans. note: 'it is not expedient']. But due to the insistent requests, the Holy Father decided that the concession be granted 'to the Episcopal Conferences that had requested it with the due cautions and under the care of the same.' The letter from the Secretary of State dated June 3, 1968 reads: 'His Holiness considers, in effect, that the bishops must be reminded of their responsibility so that they may prevent, with opportune norms, the inconveniences and moderate the indiscriminate spread of this practice which is not contrary to the doctrine but, in practice, is very disputable and dangerous. That is why when similar requests are received, they must be put to the consideration of the Holy Father and the eventual concession will be made through the Sacred Congregation of Rites.'"

"There is no doubt that Paul VI considered the change from Communion in the hand to Communion in the mouth as a real progress, and the primitive practice as a surmounted phase, not as something forgotten that we should 'rediscover'.

"'This way of distributing Holy Communion... must be preserved'. Before speaking to the Episcopate on the survey, the position of the Holy See is anticipated: the practice must be preserved for two reasons.

a) Because it is based on a practice transmitted through a tradition of many centuries. This alludes to a principle that goes back to [the times] of Aristotle: 'For the law has no power to command obedience except that of custom, which can only be given by time, so that a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law.' (Politics, II, c. 5, 1269a); this same doctrine is later restored by Saint Thomas (cf. S. Th., I-IIae, q. 97, a. 2).

b) But above all, because that liturgical gesture 'means the reverence of the faithful Christian toward the Eucharist.' Note the force of this expression used after saying that the Church 'affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of Him' (MD, [1]). This meaning of reverence was so well known that Protestant reformers, such as Martin Bucer, counsellor of the Anglican reform, strove to change the practice and introduce Communion in the hand so that their faithful would not think that Christ was present under the form of bread.

"It would be to deceive the faithful to make them think that receiving Communion in the hand would identify them more with the spirit of the primitive Church."

"In relation to what 'each form can express', according to the Magisterium, Communion in the mouth expresses 'the reverence of the faithful' and 'Communion not of common bread and wine but of the Body and Blood of the Lord', while Communion in the hand can come to express irreverence or erroneous doctrines toward the Real Presence or the priesthood."

"'taking into account the warnings and advice from those whom 'the Holy Spirit has placed as Bishops to rule the Church', the Supreme Pontiff has not considered it opportune to change the manner which was received a long time ago (...), of administering Holy Communion.' In synthesis, this is what the Instruction Memoriale Domini wants to communicate, that is to say, the purpose of the document; everything that comes before is arranged in order to explain 'the reasons and circumstances that support the manner in which the Apostolic See proceeds' (MD [Previous clarification], p. 7). The consultation has done nothing more than confirm the Pope's opinion already expressed in [8]. This is affirmed by Paul VI himself in the autographed draft in which he ordered that Memoriale Domini be written and in which he says that 'they give' the results of the bishops' consultation which confirm the thought of the Holy See concerning the inopportunity of the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand of the faithful, indicating the reasons (liturgical, pastoral, religious, etc.). Therefore, the norm in force remains confirmed.'

"This decision agrees with the doctrine of Saint Thomas, who teaches that 'human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect' and this occurs: 1) when a very great and evident benefit is provided by the new enactment; 2) when there is great necessity; 3) when the law in force contains a manifest iniquity; 4) when its observance is harmful to many (S. Th., I-IIae, q. 97, a. 2 c.). None of those motives were given to change the law on the manner of administering Communion.

"Furthermore, in the 'status quaestionis' sent to the bishops, they were warned: 'It seems that this new practice instituted here and there is the work of a small number of priests and lay persons who seek to impose their own point of view on the rest, and to force the hand of authority. To approve it would be to encourage these people who are never satisfied with the laws of the Church.'"

"Cardinal Gut, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship who signed MD [Memoriale Domini], in an interview published on July 20th, 1969 also gave testimony of those difficult times: 'Until now, bishops were allowed to authorize practices, but the limits have frequently been violated and many priests have simply done whatever they wanted to do. In this case, what has sometimes occurred is that they have imposed their own points of view. These initiatives, taken without authorization, frequently could not be suppressed because they had spread too widely. With his great kindness and prudence, the Holy Father has frequently ceded, and many times he has done so against his will.' When remembering the situation of the Church during those years, we understand why MD said that the pastoral work is 'much more difficult than ever because of the current situation.'"

"If the legislation did not change [that Communion on the tongue is the lawful practice], the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [of the practice of Communion in the hand] is that the Bishops did not listen to the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed (MD[16])."

"In conclusion, even if there should exist a General Decree of the Conference of those spoken of in c. 455 '1, this decree could never modify the restriction placed by the Instruction but it should always be maintained within the frame placed by the delegating authority. But the case does not apply here because the Pastoral Letter ('En réponse'), by which the indult is conceded, does not give the faculty of applying it to the Episcopal Conference, but rather to the bishop for his diocese. Besides, if he does not do so, the universal law that forbids Communion in the hand remains in force. Therefore, when a diocese does not accept the indult, it is not the bishop who forbids Communion [in the hand], but rather the Pope. This is what is deduced from 'an attentive study of the documents'."

And now the reasons that militate against receiving Communion in the hand:

1. It is an important disciplinary change that runs the risk of disorienting many of the faithful who do not see the need, and who have never met with this problem. There are already many changes in the field of liturgy and of the sacraments that have yet to be completely assimilated by all of the Christian community; the establishment of a new manner of receiving Communion would require a serious catechetical instruction that cannot be carried out at the same time all over.

2. It appears that there is a new practice established here and that it is the work of a small number of priests and laypersons that look to impose their own point of view on others, and force the hand of authority. To approve it would be to encourage these persons who are never satisfied with the laws of the Church.

3. And above all a decrease of respect to the Eucharistic worship should be feared. To receive Communion in the hand would seem to many to be less dignified and less respectful. Will everyone who will receive Communion in the hand have clean hands? The children also?

4. One should also ask oneself, with uneasiness, if the fragments of the Consecrated Bread will always be picked up and consumed with all the respect It deserves. If even now, when a paten is used, it is so easy that fragments fall and are dispersed, what will happen to the Particles in the hands of the faithful, of those who do not have the delicacy and the awareness to quickly pick them up?

5. Furthermore, should not an increase of desecrations and irreverences on the part of ill-intentioned persons be feared, or of those of little faith? Ill-prepared and poorly instructed people who receive the Eucharistic Bread in their hand, will they not end up equating It to ordinary bread, or to simply blessed bread?

6. By easily giving in to this very important point of Eucharistic worship, the danger exists that the audacity of the 'renovators' will dare so much as to be directed towards other sectors, which would bring about an irreparable damage to the faith and worship of the Eucharist."

"With all of this information we are able to know with clarity the mind of the legislator which we could express with the same words used by Paul VI (which he signed) and in which he ordered the writing of Memoriale Domini: 'give a summary notice of the results of the consultation of the bishops which confirms the thinking of the Holy See as to the inopportunity of distributing Holy Communion in the hand to the faithful, indicating the reasons (liturgical, pastoral, religious, etc.). Therefore, the norm in force remains confirmed.'"

"The 'fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical.' It is said in Fundamentos: 'we find ourselves surrounded by countries which have already accepted the use of the two praxis. To limit ourselves to Communion in the mouth attracts attention and generates confusion...'. If that 'fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical' would have always been kept in mind, and by all, the Episcopal Conferences would have heard the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to 'diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed' keeping in mind 'the common good of the Church' (MD [16]) and the practice would not have spread. Knowing the history of this clandestinely reintroduced rite, and spread based on equivocations and confirmed through incessant disobediences, we cannot doubt that 'the fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical' is what was lacking in those who, throughout twenty-seven years, have been imposing a practice that the Pope did not want to authorize because he considered it dangerous for the good of the Church (MD [12]), until they finally achieved the spreading of it throughout the world."

"Therefore, the habitual reading of the document is false according to which, in face of the diverse petitions and the results of the consultation to the bishops, the Pope decided to concede the practice of both rites to the Episcopal Conferences that requested it. In reality, the purpose of MD was not to be instrumental for the adoption of Communion in the hand but rather to maintain its prohibition. All of the reasons adduced to by the Pope for this are of great weight; they have a solid basis and enjoy permanent validity as they confirm the preoccupation to avoid all that has the appearance of irreverence towards God, really present in the Eucharist. The introduction of this change is of enormous importance because, given that the treatment of the Eucharist is pedagogic, the lack of preoccupation for the Particles damages the doctrine. Communion in the mouth, on the other hand, is a sign of the real and substantial presence of the Lord and of the essential distinction between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood.

"The danger of desecration is frequently minimized, saying that it always existed.

"Concerning involuntary profanations of Communion in the mouth, the risk is practically nonexistent with the use of the Communion paten, the prescribed purifications in the missal and the natural care when giving and receiving the sacred Species. With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.

"As to the voluntary profanations no one can deny that the circumstances are considerably facilitated for whoever wishes to steal a consecrated Host. It is said that during all epochs inevitable sacrileges were committed and this is true, but in such a scarce number that it did not motivate a special legislation on the part of the Holy See, because the manner itself of giving Communion impeded removal of the Hosts. Whereas now, as prior to the 10th Century, special recommendations from the ecclesiastical authorities are necessary to avoid it.

+ + +

John Paul II: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)

+ + +

Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds by Michael Davies

Protestant Reformers Insist on Communion in the Hand

The Protestant Reformers were particularly sensitive concerning the symbolism of liturgical ceremonies, and particular attention was therefore paid to eliminating anything which could perpetuate belief in a sacrificing priesthood possessing powers denied to the laity or in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. In his 1549 Communion Service, Cranmer allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting on this change are quite unambiguous:

"I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.

"As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-----as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth-----which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

"In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand." 21

It will be noted here that the consecration of the priest's hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host, something denied in such propaganda tracts as Take and Eat. The fact that the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny the Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries. This practice is, then, totally unacceptable in Catholic worship, and can never become acceptable. Contemporary Protestants would certainly not change to the reception of Communion on the tongue to accommodate Catholics, and so, in the interests of a spurious ecumenism, Catholics are being made to accept what is now a specifically Protestant practice in order to remove any remaining vestige of external respect for the Blessed Sacrament which those who consider it to be no more than bread would find offensive. This is something which should not surprise us-----it is simply a logical continuation of the pattern which began with the destruction of the Mass of St. Pius V.

21) This is an original translation but Bucer's Censura has now been republished with the Latin text and an English translation on parallel pages: Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E. C. Whitaker (Mayhew-McCrimmon, Essex, England).

+ + +

Communion in the hand and the threat of death by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
8 June 2006 @ 2:57 pm

Fellow patristicist and blogger … hmmm… patristiblogger Mike Aquilina posted a nice riff over at his place. I tip my biretta to him. o{]:¬) It got me thinking (which nearly always results in trouble). Here is the blurb that got me going, but you should read the whole piece.

Tarcisius was a boy of third-century Rome. His virtue and devotion were so strong that the clergy trusted him to bring the Blessed Sacrament to the sick. Once, while carrying a pyx, he was recognized and set upon by a pagan mob. They flung themselves upon him, trying to pry the pyx from his hands. They wanted more than anything to profane the Sacrament. Tarcisius’ biographer, the fourth-century Pope Damasus, compared them to a pack of rabid dogs. Tarcisius “preferred to give up his life rather than yield up the Body of Christ.” Even at such an early age, Tarcisius was aware of the stakes. Jesus had died for love of Tarcisius. Tarcisius did not hesitate to die for love of Jesus.

I always uphold the legal right, according to the Church’s legislation, of people to receive Communion in the hand, if they choose. I don’t like it, but it is (for now) a right in those places where it is permitted (it isn’t everywhere) and according to the manner described by competent authority.

Where am I going with this? People will often defend Communion in the hand by coming unto my turf (Fathers of the Church). They site beautiful texts, not without a measure of sentimentality and with no concomitant reference to social history. Mike’s blurb, though hagiographical, points to something really important: the social context.

When people say, "But Father! But Father! Back in the early Church people received in the hand! St. Cyril says so!"

Okay, that was then and this is now. The passage about Tarcisius reminds us that people could be KILLED for their relationship to the Church and possession of the Blessed Sacrament.

I think I would have very little problem with Communion in the hand in an environment in which we could be killed for receiving Communion. There is nothing like the threat of death to sharpen the mind.

However, when I see the way most people receive Communion in the hand I have to ask myself, are these people ready to DIE for what is going on in this church today? Is Mass something "to die for", to borrow a phrase?

While the Fathers are a critical source for our theological reflection, in the centuries that followed our understanding of the Eucharist deepened. Kneeling and reception on the tongue developed for good reason. In this day of reduced understanding of the Blessed Sacrament and even belief in the Real Presence, in this age of "me, my, mine, I, I, I", we need to reinforce what we confess through physical gestures.

+ + +

Communion in the hand was permitted only in times of persecution according to St. Basil or in places such as the desert monasteries where priests were often unavailable.

Communion in the hand came to an end due to the 1. Peace of Constantine and 2. because of a "growing respect" for the Eucharist in general according to the noted liturgist Fr. Josef Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite (London, 1959), 510). This is also why churches were later built featuring kneelers and Communion rails.

Anytime theologians come across a text, for example, by St. Basil, that supposedly endorses Communion in the hand we read it in its historical context (place and time) and in comparison to other contradictory texts. That's why it is wrong for the modern, pedestrian mind to look at the early Church as a better way (Pius XII addressed this error in Mediator Dei) of celebrating Mass because so much of our way of worship was suppressed or restrained to some extent due to persecution. And that's precisely why it is wrong to point to the early Church to support the modern innovation of Communion in the hand.

I suggest reading the following chapter from Michael Davies' Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds: What Was the Ancient Practice?

+ + +

From Jeremy Dobbs:

Quote:

St. Bede writes in his Eccleisatiscal History of England:

"Nevertheless," said he, "bring me the Eucharist." Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or grudge.

Dobbs: Was "he" a priest or deacon?

Quote:

St. John Damascene who writes in De Fide Orthodoxa:

"Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One":

Dobbs: This says nothing about receiving in the hands. The hands could have been on the breast for all that says.

Quote:

"let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divind gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."

Dobbs: Who receives the species of bread from a vessel of gold or the species of wine from their hands? Something is amiss here.

+ + +

Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View

from the May-June 1996 issue

Link to Original

If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.

The History

The practice of communion-in-the-hand was "first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops" (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).

In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one's hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled "progressive" parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.

Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful.

In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin's last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco's Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops' vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.

The Results

Frequently it is said that those who place any importance on how the Blessed Sacrament is received are no better than the biblical Pharisees who focused upon the externals of faith rather than the internals. For the Pharisees the external replaced the internal, but it does not follow that the lack of external reverence today can be divorced from the internal disposition of the faithful.

The consequences of introducing this practice are far-reaching, and one need only look to the parish Mass for proof. Not the least of these consequences is the common lack of respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. Only with the belief that the Holy Eucharist is not supernatural, can this practice of communion-in-the-hand not matter. Since it is truly the most extraordinary substance on earth, surely our comportment should reflect that? Surely our faith in the Holy Eucharist, which deserves our greatest reverence, should reflect into our actions in actually receiving the sacrament?

Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence. The consequences are profound. May we make up in our love of the Eucharist for all the outrages and indifference which now surround Our Lord’s magnificent gift to us.

+ + +

Case for Communion on the Tongue by David L. Vise

Revision 2: November 4, 1995 (Feast of St. Charles Borromeo)

Link to Original

The Bible Speaks

"After David had taken counsel with his commanders of thousands
and of hundreds, that is to say, with every one of his leaders,
he said to the whole assembly of Israel: 'If it seems good to
you, and is so decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon the
rest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and also
the priests and the Levites from their cities with pasture
lands, that they may join us, and let us bring the ark of our
God here among us, for in the days of Saul we did not visit it.
And the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea was
pleasing to all the people.

Then David assembled all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt to Labo of
Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jaerim. David and
all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jaerim, of
Judah, to bring back the ark of God, which was known by the name
"LORD ENTHRONED UPON THE CHERUBIM". They transported the ark of
God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahio
were guiding the cart, while David and all Israel danced before
God with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps,
tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.

As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretched out his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it. Then the Lord became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he died there in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on the ark. David was disturbed because the Lord's anger had broken out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called
Perez-uzza even to this day.

David was now afraid of God, and he said, 'How can I bring the ark of God with me? Therefore he did not take the ark back with him to the City of David, but he took it instead to the house of
Obed-edom the Gittite. The ark of God remained in the house of Obed-edom with his family for three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom's household and all that he possessed".

(1 Chronicles 13: 1-14)

The Church Speaks

The first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar to the text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father Paul VI, where it states:

"When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some
individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the
consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their
territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the
Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to
introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based
on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely
affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may
arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the
danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the
altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to March 12 the following responses had been received:

1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,
besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy
Communion in the hand would be permitted?

Yes: 567
No: 1,233
Yes, with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20

2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in
small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?

Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes: 70

3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned
catechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?

Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128

From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.

After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.

The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church."

The "Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of introducing this rite" in a way remarkably similar to the way that David consulted "with everyone of his leaders". The opinions were obtained and the following was decreed: "The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church." This statement is so clear and direct that no equivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanders summoned by David that "the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea was pleasing to all the people" so also it happened in Memoriale Domini that "after he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed."

The Loophole

So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini, where it states:

"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the
hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the
episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's
often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the
conferences the duty and function of judging particular
circumstances, if any. They may make this judgement provided
that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false
opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the
faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."

Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observance of Communion on the tongue for the "common good of the Church" provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become the pervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in "particular circumstances" and only if the practice "has already developed in any place" with the provision that "any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the faithful." What we have in the United States is an abuse, for this practice (Communion in the hand) was not "already developed" in our land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, nor could we consider honestly our case a "particular circumstance." It is not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals who disbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments. Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: "A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

The Angelic Doctor

His holiness Paul VI was not alone in his concerns, for we can go as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who in his Summa Theologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13 states: "Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the
ground, or else in some other case of urgency."

The Ark of the Covenant as Precursor of the Eucharist

We started this article on a biblical note to establish the close relationship between the Ark of the Covenant and the Eucharist. The Ark was holy because the Spirit of the Lord overshadowed it and His presence was around it and its contents, which were the manna, Aaron's rod and the tablets of the Law. The Ark of the Covenant is considered the archetype of the Blessed Virgin, for she carried within herself the only person perfectly representing all the contents of the Ark, Christ. He is the true bread from heaven. He is the bread of life that performs miracles and signs as was the case with Aaron's rod, and He by being the Word of God personifies the commandments, which are the Will of the Father. We Catholics believe that, after consecration, the resurrected Lord is actually present in the host. The Lord does not overshadow the consecrated host but the host is the Lord Himself. Our God is Holy, Holy, Holy and our hands should not touch the host, the Lord, just as in a similar fashion God showed us that the ark should never be touched, except by priests consecrated to the service of the Lord.

Continuing now with our Biblical reading of the book of 1st Chronicles, we observe that David declared that:

"No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for the
Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to
him forever." (1 Chronicles 15: 2)

And David told the heads of the Levitical families that:

"Because you were not with us the first time, the wrath of the
Lord our God burst upon us, for we DID NOT SEEK HIM ARIGHT" (1
Chronicles 15: 13).

David properly ascertained what occurred with Uzzah when:

"he [Uzzah] died there in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on the ark" (1 Chronicles 13: 10).

As the head of his people, David corrected the wrongdoing. Namely, only priests consecrated to the service of the Lord were allowed to handle the sacred, in his case the ark, in our case, the consecrated bread. As we continue to read, we notice in 1 Chronicles 15: 14-15 that,

"Accordingly, the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves
to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levites
bore the ark of God on their shoulders with poles, as MOSES HAD
ORDAINED ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF THE LORD".

Here we see that the problem was one of improperly following the directives set up by Moses who spoke as the representative of God on earth. As it pertains to our case, is it not known that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? Is it not known that the Seat of Moses was replaced by the Chair of Peter? And, did he not say in his Memoriale Domini that "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED"?

We also notice that David takes part in the celebrations of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and in 1 Chronicles 15: 26-28 it states:

"While the Levites, with God's help, were bearing the ark of the
covenant of the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams were
sacrificed. David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were
all the Levites who carried the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah,
the leader of the chant; David was also wearing a linen ephod."

David was not only partaking of the celebrations but was clothed like the Levites in fine linen, and, as if this were not enough, he was wearing the linen ephod which was reserved only for the successor of Aaron, the high priest (see Exodus 28: 1-43). David was thus acting as the high priest of the God of Israel, the God Most High. Prior to the existence of Israel, we find the first priest ever mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 14: 18-20:

"Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and
being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these
words: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven
and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes
into your hand.' Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything."

David is acting in full the part of Melchizedek, for he is the king of [Jeru]Salem, bringing the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel while

"he blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed
to every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread, a piece of meat, and a raisin cake" (1 Chronicles 16:
2-3).

Both the priesthood of Melchizedek and David are antecedents to the true priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek", to the true King of Peace (Salem), the true Son of righteousness, the Son of David (see Hebrews, chapter 7), our Lord Jesus Christ. Melchizedek is not only the first priest mentioned in the Bible, nor did he just introduce the bread and wine as offerings that our Lord Jesus later consecrated as His Body and Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant, but Melchizedek is also the common theme between Christ and David. This theme is brought up by both, first by David in Psalm 110 where he states in verse 1:

"The Lord says, to you, my Lord: 'Take your throne at my right
hand, while I make your enemies your footstool'."

This is verbatim the verse in Matthew 22: 44 that Jesus uses to explain that He is the Messiah of whom David spoke. Psalm 110, verses 2 & 3, establish the Kingship of the Messiah:

"The scepter of your sovereign might the Lord will extend from
Zion. The Lord says: 'Rule over your enemies'. Yours is
princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor
before the daystar, like the dew I begot you."

The priesthood is established in verse 4:

"The Lord has sworn and will not waver: 'Like Melchizedek you
are a priest forever'."

The titles and privileges of being at the same time King and Priest is shared by the three of them and it is this commonality that helps us understand the commonality of the Ark and the Eucharist, and why the Pope calls us to avoid any "lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine."

The Mass, The Sacrifice and the Eucharist

In chapter 16 of 1 Chronicles we see in an incipient form all the components now present in the Eucharist. A key issue in our faith is our emphasis on the concept of offering an acceptable sacrifice to our Father in heaven. Christ as the new and everlasting covenant offers himself in an unbloody sacrifice and as the only acceptable sacrifice to His Father every time Mass is offered. (Here also lies a big difference between us and our separated brethren since we not only pray to our God but to Him and only Him we offer sacrifice.)This principle of our faith is visited in 1 Chronicles 16: 1, where we read:

"Then they offered up holocausts and peace offerings to God."

We recall that during the last supper when our Lord instituted the Eucharist,

"He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:
19).

As David

"blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed to
every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread ..." (1 Chronicles 16: 2-3).

The Last Supper was celebrated during the Passover, not by accident but by design. (This is clear in Luke 22:15, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer".) For our Lord wanted to establish the connection, without a doubt, between His sacrifice and the lamb offered during Passover (the lamb with the unbroken bones which the Israelites were commanded to eat for the "salvation" of their firstborn).

A great blessing comes during Communion when we take the Host which is the body and blood of Christ as commanded by our Lord in John 6, and specifically in John 6: 41:

"I AM the bread that came down from heaven."

This is anticipated in the "loaf of bread" in the passage from 1 Chronicles 16:2-3. He also said in John 6: 53:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you".

The "flesh" correlates with the sacrificial "piece of meat" and the blood with the "raisin cake" (as raisins are dried grapes and wine is also made from grapes, and we know that Christ stated in Luke 22: 17-18 "Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you that from this time on I shall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes'"). Another pertinent point is that David understood the Will of the Father regarding the holiness of the ark and thus "He now appointed certain Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, to celebrate, thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel." Our Catholic Church has a special sacrament reserved for those that will perform the priestly responsibilities, known as Holy Orders. Via this sacrament, the priest is given, by the hierarchy of the Church, a unique position among the believers and he is able to perform certain functions within the Church that no one else can, such as the consecration of the host. For this reason, only the priest should be allowed to touch the consecrated bread.

The Son of David and the Catholic Church

In 1st Chronicles, chapter 17, which is critical in this study, we see that David becomes anxious to build a suitable permanent house for the ark of the covenant and is given permission by Nathan to proceed (1 Chronicles 17: 2):

"Do therefore, whatever you desire, for God is with you."
.
However, the Lord had other plans and communicates them via Nathan to David telling him (1 Chronicles 17: 4):

"It is not you who will build a house for me to dwell in."

The Lord establishes at that very moment a covenant with David, stating:

"I will make your name great like that of the greatest of the
earth" (1 Chronicles 17: 8),

and, He explains how He planned to accomplish that task in 1 Chronicles 17: 11-15:

"So that when your days have been completed and you must join
your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who will
be one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. HE
IS IT WHO SHALL BUILD ME A HOUSE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH HIS
THRONE FOREVER. I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A
SON TO ME, AND I WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY FAVOR FROM HIM AS I
WITHDREW IT FROM HIM WHO PRECEDED YOU. BUT I WILL MAINTAIN HIM
IN MY HOUSE AND IN MY KINGDOM FOREVER, AND HIS THRONE SHALL BE
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FOREVER. All these words and this whole
vision Nathan related exactly to David."

The common and obvious meaning of the passage is humanly partially fulfilled by Solomon, David's son, in the actual building of the temple. The divine house that the Lord spoke about is confirmed by Him in Matthew 16: 18 when the Father reveals to Simon Peter the identity of His Son, and Jesus then utters:

"Therefore I say to you, you are the Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build my Church" (House).

David understood well the depth of that promise for he says:

"O God! For You have made a promise regarding your servant's
family reaching into the DISTANT FUTURE, and you have looked on
me as henceforth the most notable of men, O Lord God. What more
can David say to you? You know your servant. O Lord, for your
servant's sake and in keeping with your purpose, you have done
this great thing" (1 Chronicles 17: 17-19).

David continues his exaltation of the Lord all through the remaining verses of this chapter. This promised covenant becomes flesh in the New Covenant that Christ establishes upon Himself. He is the New Covenant, the Son of David, that we eat during the Eucharist and as such is the living tabernacle, who, like the Ark, should not be touched by human hands.

As Catholics we are called to understand the sacrament of Communion as a gift so holy that our liturgy compels us to utter, prior to receiving the Eucharist, the words "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed", and as Catholics we are to signify what we say. This point becomes a source of contradiction when we receive the Eucharist in the hand. Either we skip those words and take Communion in the hand or keep them and take Communion in the mouth, for either we are worthy or we are not.

Indeed, we are to be like newborns receiving our spiritual food in the mouth, and should avoid being like Napoleon taking the crown from the bishop's hands and crowning ourselves Emperors of all France.

Christ promised us everlasting life when He introduced the mystery of transubstantiation in John 6: 51 and 53-57 respectively:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats
this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is
my flesh for the life of the world."

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father
sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one
who feeds on me will have life because of me."

Christ, the consecrated host, is that bread of life that we as Catholics so much desire, for we believe in Him and what He said. This life is reflected also in His Church as a whole, and, when we pay no heed to the advice of Paul VI, "that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the faithful", we run the risk of Holland.

A Case in Point

Father Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholic country and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now its vitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted the procedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed (removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal of kneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he saw that on one occasion at Holland's cathedral when Mass was celebrated by their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present. We in America have not yet reached this pathetic stage and are not too late to halt the advances of the evil one who will stop at nothing in his drive to destroy our Church. "Liberal theology" and politically correct agendas will continue to undermine our faith if we do not take a stand armed with the truths given to our Church by Christ. We must oppose anything that seeks to erode our faithful following of the Vicar of Christ so that we as good children of Mary whom the devil "wages war against" (Apocalypses 12: 17) can prevail and claim the sublime promise of eternal life with our Creator and Father in the company of our heavenly family.

An Attempt to Justify the Abuse

In an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could be argued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that all that is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the Last Supper...Someone else may even say that holding the host in theirhands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimate relationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesus in their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. The consecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorified Lord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to the privilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fitting relationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas who kneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or the encounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as related in the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once "was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloved disciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the present irreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.

We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini" where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Some bishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangers that it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of "insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." It is not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is any less or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate that receiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering down
of our faith, as well as possible desecration.

Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint Thomas Aquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritatively and sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thus conclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was well established by then. When we search further back in history, we see that Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod of Rouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the Holy Father Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."

In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for taking communion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the hand during the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive the Eucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblical exegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priests when they received the Eucharist.

Holy Orders and Washing of the Feet

Rituals in the Jewish tradition had both an immediate and a spiritual significance; for instance, it was customary to wash before eating together, starting with their feet. The feet were first, since in those days the roads were dusty and the feet were evidently the most affected by it. This constituted the practical and immediate significance. From the spiritual perspective, the feet were washed as a symbol of respect to someone of spiritual dignity; for instance in the case of Abraham receiving the three men after he had seen God in Mamre (Genesis 18:3): "My Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and WASH YOUR FEET." This ritual is repeated when the two angels sent by the Lord to destroy Sodom, due to the homosexual depravity of the city inhabitants, encounter Lot and he said: "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night, and WASH YOUR FEET; then you may rise early and go on your way." This concept is well in line with the passage in Isaiah 52:7 that states:

"How beautiful upon the mountains are THE FEET of him who brings good
news", referring to the Messiah.

This apparent fixation on the feet is explained by the Hebrew euphemism that referring to the feet is equivalent to what occurs between them, namely the procreative act. This point is clearly seen in the passage where David, after having impregnated Uriah's wife, is intent in making her pregnancy appear the act of her husband by forcing him to lie with her: "Go down to
your house, and WASH YOUR FEET" (2 Samuel 11:8), followed by the response of Uriah: "Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to LIE WITH MY WIFE?" The Hebrews understood well the correlation of procreation and fatherhood, which had both the physical
significance as well as the spiritual one; indeed, the spiritual fatherhood is of greater importance. The washing of the feet thus establishes the understanding that the person who is being washed has this spiritual fatherhood, which consists in the bringing of the good news and the establishing of the covenant with the one Father in heaven. Obviously, this concept could be discussed in a deeper fashion, but it is brought here up only schematically to illustrate that what was in operation during the washing of the feet of the apostles was indeed their reception of Holy Orders from Jesus, the One whose feet were anointed with very expensive perfume.

Indeed, the ministry received from Jesus in this fashion is such that, if the feet were not washed, Jesus could say to Peter: "If I do not wash you, you have no PART with me." The Greek word used by Jesus for the word "part" is "æ " which is the same one used by the apostle Peter (previously Simon) with another individual having the name Simon who proposed to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:21), a presumptuous intention to which Peter responds: "You have no PART or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God." This condemnation is again very similar to what the Lord said about Judas during the washing of the feet (John 13:11): "For He knew who was to betray him; that was why He said, You are not all clean.'"

In summary, the God who established the order in the universe establishes the proper order at the Last Supper when He ordained His priests prior to giving them the command:

"This is my body which is given up for you. DO THIS in remembrance of me."

The Lord does not have to subject himself to this particular order. His mere command to do so entitles the apostles to their ministry; however, in the same humility with which He washes their feet, He subjects Himself to a proper order of events, in order to fulfill all righteousness. It is in understanding this mystery that the laymen are called to refuse a non-reality, and acknowledge that they have not received Holy Orders, and reject any pretensions to take the Holy body of the Lord in our hands as if we were priests.

Conclusion

All laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 10:23:

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify."

Communion in the hand, though lawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of the center of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapening of what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of the sacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, John Paul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in Saint Peter's Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like to restate the well known assertion "Where Peter is, you will find the Church", but would like to modify it by adding 'and where the Church
is, you will find the truth' (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: "the Church is the pillar and foundation of our truth.") My desire is for priests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouraging Communion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on this matter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priests have an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform their parishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymen reading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverence for the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve to take Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth.

The Condemnation of Modernism by Cardinal Mercier

2007-09-08T12:58:00.000-04:00

Editor’s Note: This month marks the Centenary of Pope St. Pius X’s Encyclical Against Modernism, Pascendi, issued on September 8, 1907. Presented here is a letter of Cardinal Mercier, then-primate of Belgium, on the subject of Modernism. The Letter is of dogmatic and historical interest as it was written at the time of Pascendi’s release. The Cardinal congratulates the Church in Belgium at the time for not succumbing to Modernist errors. Would that this could be said of the Church in Belgium today.

THE ENCYCLICAL.

DEARLY BELOVED BRETHREN,

On July 3rd, 1907, the Holy Father prepared a list of errors which, later, were grouped together under the name of Modernism, and condemned.

On the 8th of September following he addressed to the Catholic world an Encyclical of incomparable fulness, vigour, and clearness, in which he sets forth his reasons for condemning Modernism. Thank God! these errors, which have so far invaded France and Italy, attract few followers in Belgium. You have been preserved by the vigilance of your pastors, by an impartial scientific spirit, and by the Christian submission that animates the representatives of higher learning in your country.

Nevertheless, beloved brethren, I consider it a pastoral duty to bring to your knowledge this Pontifical Encyclical, which henceforth will be known in ecclesiastical history by its introductory Latin words: "Pascendi Domini gregis", or, more briefly, "Pascendi."

Since the Holy Father addresses his letter to each Church in particular, that is, to the Bishops, priests, and Catholic laity, it is his intention that each one should individually profit by the Encyclical. The importance of this document, moreover, gives it an historic value: hence, those who are interested in our Mother, the Church, should know, at least in substance, its meaning. It is a well-known fact that scarcely had the Pope spoken, or rather before he had spoken, and from the moment that the telegraphic agents heralded his coming announcement, the unbelieving press began to misrepresent it, and the newspapers and reviews hostile to the Church in our country neither published the text nor the general tenour of the Encyclical with fulness or frankness. But with an eagerness and a harmony of opinion that altogether explain their attitude, they quibbled over the word Modernism in the endeavour to convince their confiding readers that the Pope condemns modern thought, which in their ambiguous language signifies modern science and its methods.

This offensive and false impression of the Pope and his faithful followers has perhaps been shared by some amongst you, hence it is our earnest wish to remove this impression by explaining Modernism, and, in so doing, enlighten you as to the reasons that led to its condemnation by the Supreme Authority of the Church.

WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEA OF MODERNISM?

Modernism is not the modern expression of science, and consequently its condemnation is not the condemnation of science, of which we are so justly proud, nor the disapproval of its methods, which all Catholic scientists hold, and consider it an honour to teach and to practice.

Modernism consists essentially in affirming that the religious soul must draw from itself, from nothing but itself, the object and motive of its faith. It rejects all revelation imposed upon the conscience, and thus, as a necessary consequence, becomes the negation of the doctrinal authority of the Church established by Jesus Christ, and it denies, moreover, to the divinely constituted hierarchy the right to govern Christian society.

The better to understand the significance of this fundamental error, let us recall the teaching of the Catechism on the constitution and mission of the Catholic Church.

Christ did not represent Himself to the world as the head of a philosophy and uncertain of His teaching! He did not leave a modifiable system of opinions to the discussion of His disciples. On the contrary, strong in His divine wisdom and sovereign power, He pronounced, and imposed upon men the revealed word that assures eternal salvation, and indicated to them the unique way to attain it. He promulgated for them a code of morals, giving them certain helps without which it is impossible to put these precepts into practice. Grace, and the Sacraments which confer it upon us, or restore it to us, when, having sinned, we again find it through repentance, form together these helps, this economy of salvation. He instituted a Church, and as He had only a few years to dwell with us upon earth, He conferred His power upon His Apostles, and after them on their successors, the Pontiffs and Bishops. The Episcopate, in union with the Sovereign Pontiff, has then received and alone posesses the right to officially set forth and comment upon the doctrines revealed by Christ: and it and he alone are empowered to denounce with authority errors that are incompatible with its teachings. The Christian is he who confides in the authority of the Church and sincerely accepts the doctrines that she proposes to his faith. He who repudiates or questions her authority, and in consequence rejects one or more of the truths he is required to believe, excludes himself from the ecclesiastical fold.

THE CHURCH AND THE MODERNISTS.

The excommunication pronounced by the Pope against wilful Modernists, which adversaries characterise as an act of despotism, is simple and natural, and in it we see only a question of loyalty.

Yes or no, do you believe in the divine authority of the Church? Do you accept outwardly and in the sincerity of your heart what in the name of Christ she commands? Do you consent to obey her? If so, she offers you her Sacraments, and undertakes to conduct you safely into the harbour of salvation. If not, then you deliberately sever the tie that unites you to her, and break the bond consecrated by her grace. Before God and your conscience you no longer belong to her: no longer remain in obstinate hyprocrisy a pretended member of her fold. You cannot honestly pass yourself off as one of her sons, and as she cannot be a party to hypocrisy and sacrilege, she bids you, if you force her to it, to leave her ranks.

Of course she only repudiates you so long as you wish it yourself. The day you deplore having strayed from the fold, and return to recognise loyally her authority, she receives you with clemency, and treats you in the same way as the father of the prodigal son, who welcomed with tenderness his repentant child.

Such, then, is the constitution of the Church.

The Catholic Episcopate, of which the Pope is the head, is the heir of the apostolic college that teaches the Faithful the authentic Christian revelation.

And as the life of the entire organism is centred in the head, which directs its actions and arranges with order all its movements, so the Pope assures unity to the teaching Church; and each time that one of the Faithful, even a Bishop, proclaims contrary doctrine, the Holy Father decides with Supreme Authority, and from that authority there is no appeal.

In fine, the entire question resolves itself into this: whenever a Christian is in doubt, he asks himself these two questions -- What must I believe now? And why must I believe it?

The reply is this: I believe the teaching of the Catholic Bishops who are in accord with the Pope, and I am forced to believe it, because the Episcopate in union with the Pope is the organ that transmits to the Faithful the revealed teaching of Jesus Christ. Let me say in passing that this organ of transmission is no other than tradition, which the believing Christian must loyally accept and follow. Hence the Modernism condemned by the Pope is the negation of the Church's teaching, a simple truth you learnt as a child when preparing for your First Communion.

THE AFFINITY OF MODERNISM WITH PROTESTANTISM.

The generating ideas of the Modernist doctrine first saw light in Protestant Germany. These ideas, however, became forthwith acclimatized in England, and several off-shoots have penetrated into the United States.

The spirit of Modernism has appeared in Catholic countries, where it manifests itself in the writings of certain authors who are forgetful of the traditions of the Church, and have shocked by the enormity of their errors loyal consciences faithful to their baptismal vows. This spirit has breathed over France, Italy has felt its blight, and some Catholics in England and Germany have suffered the infection. Belgium, happily, is one of the Catholic countries that has most successfully resisted its pernicious influence.

You understand, we make a difference between Modernist doctrines and the spirit that animates them. The doctrines disseminated in the philosophical, theological, exegetic and apologetic writings have been admirably systematized in the Encyclical Pascendi; and since it has been your privilege to escape their influence, it is hardly necessary to prove to you how completely these teachings are at variance with faith and sound philosophy.

But I dread even more for your souls the contagion of this spirit of Modernism, which is the outcome of Protestantism.

You know in what Protestantism consists. Luther questioned the right of the Church to teach the Christian world the revelations of Jesus Christ with authority. The Christian, he contends, is self-sufficient in his beliefs; he infers the elements of his faith from the Sacred Scriptures, which each man interprets directly under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He does not admit the existence in the Church of a hierarchically-constituted authority which transmits faithfully to the world the revealed teaching, or that it has the right to interpret, or to claim to guard this teaching in its integrity.

This is the essential point in dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Catholic contends that the faith of the Christian is communicated to the Faithful by an official organ of transmission: the Catholic Episcopate, and that faith is based on the acceptance of the authority of this organ. The Protestant says, on the contrary, that it is exclusively an affair of individual judgment based on the interpretation of the Bible. A Protestant Church is necessarily invisible, since it depends on the assumed agreement of individual consciences as to the meaning of Holy Scripture. Protestantism thus formulated was condemned by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and the man does not exist who would dare to call himself a Protestant and think himself at the same time a Catholic.

But the spirit of Protestantism crept here and there into Catholic centres, and gave birth to conceptions wherein we find a mixture of sincere piety -- the religious instincts of a Catholic soul and the intellectual errors of Protestantism.

Frederick Paulsen, Professor at the Rational Protestant University at Berlin, speaking of the Encyclical Pascendi admits this strange fact. "It seems," he says, "that all the doctrines condemned by the Encyclical are of German origin, and yet there is hardly one theologian in Germany who defends Modernism in his own faculty of Theology."

This is most significant. But traces of the spirit of Protestantism in German University centres date further back than to-day.

When Pius IX called a General Council in 1869, a learned and well-known Catholic Professor at the University in Munich, Döllinger, who later openly fell away, writing à propos of the rôle of Bishops in these Councils, says: "The Bishops must be present at the Council to bear witness to the faith of their respective dioceses; and the definitions that result from the Council must be the expression of collective beliefs."

Here you have, beloved brethren, the accord of the individual conscience substituted for the direction of authority.

THE SPIRIT OF MODERNISM IN F. TYRRELL'S WRITINGS.

The most intelligent observer of the contemporary Modernist movement and the most expressive of its tendency, he who has seized its true significance and who is perhaps the most profoundly imbued with its spirit, is the English priest, Father Tyrrell.

In the numerous writings published by him in the last ten years there is much that is edifying, much for which we are deeply grateful to the author: but often in the spirit which animates these same pages there is the fundamental error of Döllinger, the real principle of Protestantism.

This, however, is not surprising, inasmuch as Father Tyrrell is a convert, and was educated under Protestant influences.

Tyrrell, who was intent only on the interior workings of the conscience, neglectful of dogmatic traditions and ecclesiastical history, zealous above all to hold in the bosom of the Church those of our own contemporaries whom the blustering assertions of unbelievers disconcert (those unbelievers who, sometimes in the name of natural science, sometimes in the name of historical criticism, endeavour to impose philosophic prejudices and hypercritical conjectures as conclusions drawn from science in conflict with our Faith), has, after the lapse of forty years, renewed an attack analogous to that of the apostate Döllinger.

Revelation, he says, is not a doctrinal deposit confided to the guardianship of the teaching Church of which the Faithful will receive the authentic interpretations at various times when an authoritative announcement is required; it is the collective life of religious souls, or, rather, of every person of good will who aspires to an ideal above the material ambitions of the egotist. The Saints of Christianity are the élite of this invisible society, this communion of Saints. While the Religious life follows unswervingly its course in the depths of the Christian conscience, "theological" beliefs work themselves out in the intelligence, express themselves in formulae commanded by the needs of the moment, but less conformed to the living reality of faith according as they are dogmatically defined. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church interprets the interior life of the Faithful, recapitulates the product of the universal conscience, and announces it in the form of a dogma. But the true inner religious life remains the supreme guide in matters of faith and dogma.

Moreover, the force of the intelligence being subject to a thousand fluctuations, the code of belief varies; the dogmas of the Church in turn change their sense, if not necessarily their expression, according to the successive generations to whom she speaks. Nevertheless the Catholic Church remains one, and is faithful to its Founder; for since the time of Christ the same spirit of religion and holiness animates the successive generations of the Christian world, and all meet on the common ground, which in the main is the sentiment of filial piety to Our Father in heaven, love for humanity, and a universal brotherhood.

CAUSES THAT FAVOURED THE GROWTH OF MODERNISM.

Such, beloved brethren, is the soul of Modernism.

The leading idea of the system has been greatly influenced by the philosophy of Kant; a Protestant himself and author of a special theory in which the universal certitude of science is opposed to the exclusively personal certitude of religious sentiment. It has been without doubt this infatuation, as general as it is ill-considered, that attracts so many superior minds to apply arbitrarily and a priori to history, and especially to the history of the Holy Scriptures and our dogmatic beliefs, an hypothesis -- the hypothesis of evolution -- which, far from being a general law in the domain of human reasoning, has not been even proved in the limited field of the formation of animal and vegetable species. This idea in itself, which in the beginning inspired many generous champions of the Catholic apologetic school, and which later on plunged them into Modernism, is none other at bottom than Protestant individualism, which substitutes itself for the Catholic conception of a teaching authority established by Jesus Christ, and charged with the mission of informing us what we are obliged to believe under pain of eternal damnation.

This spirit is everywhere in the atmosphere, and for this reason, no doubt, the Pope, specially guided by Divine Providence, addresses to the whole world an Encyclical, the doctrinal tenor of which concerns, it seems, but a fraction of the Catholics of France, England, and Italy.

The doctrines condemned by the Encyclical horrified faithful Christians by their mere announcement. But in the tendencies of Modernism there must be something seductive which seems to attract even honest minds, true to the faith of their baptism. Whence comes, and in what consists the charm that renders Modernism so attractive to youth? We see two principal causes, and these are the two errors I hope to dissipate in the second part of my pastoral letter.

PRETENDED ANTAGONISM BETWEEN PROGRESS AND THE CHURCH.

The unbelieving Press loudly proclaims that the Pope, in condemning Modernism, puts himself in opposition to progress, and denies to Catholics the right to advance with the age. Deceived by this falsehood, which certain Catholics have imprudently believed, many right-minded and honest souls, until now faithful to the Church, waver, become discouraged, and imagine without reason that they cannot obey their Christian consciences and at the same time serve the cause of scientific progress.

It seems clearly my duty to reply to these calumnious accusations of a hostile press in an announcement addressed specially to the clergy, extracts from which they can make use of at their own discretion for the benefit of the Faithful. It is imperative, however, to convince men of good will in Belgium that, in being with the Pope against Modernism, they are not less with the times in promoting progress and in honouring Science.

Thanks be to God, the Belgian Catholics have escaped these Modernist heresies. The representatives of philosophical and theological teaching in our University, those in our free branches of studies, and those also in the Seminaries and Religious Congregations, have unanimously and spontaneously given weight to this declaration in a document signed by each one of them, in which they state that the Pope, by his courageous Encyclical, has saved the Faith and protected Science.

And these same signatories, have they not the right to proudly face their accusers, in the name of the Catholic institutions they represent, and to demand of them: What, then, is the science that we have not served, and that we will not serve, as well, if not better, than you? Do our Professors fear to be compared with yours? The pupils we educate, pitted by public competition against yours, do they not always carry off the honours?

The strength of conviction and the sincerity of love is tested by sacrifice. You know, perhaps, the liberality of the unbeliever in behalf of Science. This is true, and I rejoice in the fact, but I ask you without fear to compare it with the lavish generosity of millions of Catholic Belgians for all branches of learning.

THE UNCONSCIOUS ASSIMILATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH WITH MODERN POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS.

The second error -- an error which takes advantage of the spirit of Modernism to infect the youth of our day, and sometimes also to draw away the masses -- is the unconscious confusion of the constitution of the Catholic Church with the political organizations of modern society.

Under the Parliamentary system, each citizen is supposed to have a voice in the direction of public affairs: the revolutionary theories circulated by Rousseau, and adopted in the declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, have disseminated in the masses a mistaken idea that the directing authority of the country is made up of the collective individual wills of the people; the representatives of power are thus considered delegates, whose exclusive rôle it is to interpret and turn to account the opinions and will of their constituents.

It is this conception of power that Döllinger wished to apply to the Bishops assembled in the Vatican Council. Later on, Father Tyrrell applied it to the Bishops as well as the faithful ecclesiastics or laics of the Christian community, reserving only to the Bishops and even to the supreme authority of the Pope the right to put on record and to proclaim authentically what the dispersed members of the Christian family, nay, even what religious communities have thought, loved, and felt.

This analogy is false: civil society, following a natural law, is born of the union and co-operation of the wills of the members that compose it. But the supernatural society of the Church is essentially positive and external, and must be accepted by its members as it was organized by its divine Founder, and to Christ alone belongs the right to dictate to us His will.

Listen to the Son of God, made Man, giving His Apostles His sovereign and indefeasible instructions: "Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature." "He that believeth, and, is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." The Evangelist St. Mark, who quotes these words in the last page of his Gospel, concludes as follows: "And the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God. But they going forth preached everywhere; the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." Hence the Bishops continue the apostolic mission, and the Faithful must listen, believe, and obey their teaching under pain of eternal damnation. "If he will not hear the Church," says our Lord, "let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican," that is like unto a man without faith. "Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven."

THE CHRISTIAN MUST PROTECT HIS FAITH BY ENLIGHTENMENT.

Hold fast, dear Christians, to the cornerstone of your faith. Confide in your Bishop, who himself is supported by the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Bishops, the immediate representative of the Son of God, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Protect with vigilance the treasure of your faith, without which nothing will profit you for eternity.

Perfect your religious instruction.

It is an astonishing fact that in proportion as the youth grows to manhood, he considers it almost a question of honour to develop his physical forces, to increase the measure of his knowledge, to strengthen his judgment, enrich his experience, to polish his language and refine his style, and better inform himself on the march of events. Man has at heart the perfection of his profession, and is there a lawyer, magistrate, doctor, or merchant who would not blush if forced to admit at forty that for the last twenty years he had added nothing to his store of knowledge?

And is it not a fact that if Catholics of twenty, thirty and forty years of age were interrogated, they would have to confess that since their First Communion they had not studied their religion, and perhaps have even now forgotten what they then learned?

In these troubled times I understand the conquests of unbelief, and I deplore them; but what seems more difficult to explain is that a believing, intelligent man, conscious of the value of that rare gift of Faith, is content to ignore what he believes, why he believes it, and what the solemn vows of baptism pledged him to, towards God and his neighbour.

Every well educated man should have in his library a Catechism, if not to learn by heart, at least to study the text. The one most highly recommended is the Catechism of the Council of Trent, an admirable work in its clearness, precision and method, in which by the order of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, a commission of distinguished theologians was charged to condense the substance of faith and morals and the institutions of Christianity.

To instruct himself in the reasons for his belief the well-informed Catholic should have, beside his Catechism, a manual of the dogmatic teachings of the Church, and the principal Pontifical Encyclicals addressed to our generation, those of Leo XIII, of glorious memory, and the Encyclicals of Pius X.

All Catholics should have in their households, if not the integral text of the Bible, at least the New Testament, that is, the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. And they should have, moreover, a history of the Church and an apologetical treatise.

But to keep alive and nourish his piety every Christian should possess a Roman Missal, and a treatise on the liturgy that will explain the ceremonies of the Mass and the principal manifestations of religious worship in the Church.

The Imitation of Christ, Bossuet's Meditations on the Gospels, and The Introduction to a Devout Life, by St. Francis of Sales, and, in addition to these, several lives of the Saints that represent to us the practical application of the teaching of the Gospel: these books form together at a very modest outlay the minimum religious library of a Christian family. Every family, however humble, ought to have several books of piety.

I have sometimes glanced at the libraries of friends following liberal careers, and noticed books of science, of literature, and profane history; but how often one searches in vain for any religious literature. Is it then surprising that minds so poorly equipped are easily taken in by an audaciously formulated objection: they are then horrified, and appeal to apologetics for help.

Apologetics have without doubt their place in the Church, and oppose a defence to every attack. When one is ill the physician is called in, but hygiene is more potent than the doctor. Study for choice the statements and proofs of Catholic doctrine, penetrate yourself with its teachings and meditate on them, get to know the history of the Church, and learn her apostolic labours.

EXHORTATION TO PRAYER AND VIGILANCE.

Watch and pray! By the integrity of your life, by the purity of your morals, and by the humble confession of your dependence on God and your need of His merciful Providence, banish the interested motives for unbelief, and then will disappear, as mists before the sun, the doubts that rise in the soul and obscure the horizon. And if at times on some special point a doubt should trouble your conscience, have recourse to some enlightened man: the explanation he will give you will be adapted to your mentality and to your peculiar state of soul at that moment; and will be more efficacious than replies indiscriminately addressed to a large crowd of listeners or readers.

None of us, dearly beloved brethren, sufficiently appreciates the gift of Faith. Man is so made that he takes no account of what has definitely become part of his constitution. You have sight, hearing, good lungs, and a sound heart; and do you often thank God for these blessings? Ah! if you were menaced with blindness, loss of hearing, tuberculosis or paralysis, how much greater would be your appreciation of the blessings that you seem on the point of losing, and how spontaneous would be your gratitude when you had recovered your sense of security.

The Protestant nations are sick, and for four centuries the leaven of free interpretation has been working in them: observe with what painful anxiety religious souls are being torn asunder by the thousand and one sects between whose conflicting claims they cannot come to a decision.

And it is just when devout Protestants are attacked by liberalism and tossed about by doubts, and appeal in despair to authority for help, crying: "Save us, O Lord, or we perish!" that the Modernists would do away with the Chief who makes us the envy of our separated brethren, and invite us to renew an experiment that four lamentable centuries proclaim a failure.

No, beloved brethren, we will have nothing to do with such a painful experiment. More closely than ever will we hold to the Vicar of Christ.

"I have a great mystery to preach to you," said Bossuet; "the mystery of the unity of the Church." United within by the Holy Spirit, she has still a common tie in her exterior Communion, and must remain united by a government wherein the authority of Christ is represented. This union guards unity, and under the seal of ecclesiastical government unity of mind is preserved.

The unity of Christian Faith is safe only in the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is only stable on the Chair of Peter.

"We will turn then," said St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, at the end of the second century, "to the most ancient of the Churches, known to all as the Church founded and constituted at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we will prove that the traditions held by the Apostles, and the Faith they announced to men, have come to us by the regular succession of Bishops: and it will be a subject of confusion for all those who, either from vanity, blindness or bad feeling, take in without discrimination all sorts of opinions that may happen to appeal to them; for such is the superiority of the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome, that all the Churches, that is to say, the Faithful the world over, must be in accord with her, and the Faithful, wherever they may come from, will find intact in her the traditions of the Apostles."

Click here for full text of Pascendi

Quo Primum

2007-07-19T22:05:00.000-04:00

Papal Bull decreed by Pope Saint Pius V on July 14, 1570 which set in stone for all time the exactness of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the Mother Tongue of the Church.

ex decreto
Ss. Concilii Tridentini restitutum
Summorum Pontificum cura
recognitum
editio XXXI post typicam

PIUS: BISHOP OF ROME
Servant of the Servants of God
FOR AN EVERLASTING MEMORIAL

(The following version is the English translation from the official Latin)

Upon our elevation to the Apostolic throne We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God’s help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose.

Whereas amongst other decrees of the Holy Council of Trent We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God’s consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful, and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruits of this labor: that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to use henceforward in the celebration of Masses.

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply moreover even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever; saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See’s institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than two hundred years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid. Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to this rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or, possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years.

Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our Constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.

Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for nonobservance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication latae sententiae and all other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents. We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar for subsequent copies, which, when made, must be compared with the exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome.

But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo de’Fiori; moreover We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text. Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at Saint Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation, one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July of the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

H. Cumin Caesar Glorierius

+ + +

The following is Quo Primum in Latin:

PIUS EPISCOPUS ROMA
servus servorum Dei
AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM

QUO PRIMUM tempore ad Apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, ad ea libenter animum, viresque nostras intendimus, et cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et Deo ipso adjuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus.

Cumque inter alia sacri Tridentini Concilii decreta, Nobis statuendum esset de sacris libris, Catechismo, Missali et Breviario edendis atque emendandis: edito jam, Deo ipso annuente, ad populi eruditionem Catechismo, et ad debitas Deo persolvendas laudes Breviario castigato, omnino, ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missae celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat), necesse jam videbatur, ut, quod reliquum in hac parte esset, de ipso nempe Missali edendo, quam primum cogitaremus.

Quare eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus: qui quidem, diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorumdem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt, ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt.

Quod recognitum jam et castigatum, matura adhibita consideratione, ut ex hoc instituto, coeptoque labore, fructus omnes percipiant, Romae quam primum imprimi, atque impressum edi mandavimus: nempe ut sacerdotes intelligant, quibus precibus uti, quos ritus, quasve caeremonias in Missarum celebratione retinere posthac debeant.

Ut autem a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia, ceterarum ecclesiarum matre et magistra, tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent, ne in posterum perpetuis futuris temporibus in omnibus Christiani orbis Provinciarum Patriarchalibus, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis et Parochialibus, saecularibus, et quorumvis Ordinum, monasteriorum, tam virorum, quam mulierum, etiam militiarum regularibus, ac sine cura Ecclesiis vel Capellis, in quibus Missa conventualis alta voce cum Choro, aut demissa, celebrari juxta Romanae Ecclesiae ritum consuevit vel debet alias quam juxta Missalis a nobis editi formulam decantetur, aut recitetur, etiamsi eaedem Ecclesiae quovis modo exenptae, Apostolicae Sedis indulto, consuetudine, privilegio, etiam juramento, confirmatione Apostolica, vel aliis quibusvis facultatibus munitae sint; nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica adprobata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit: a quibus, ut praefatam celebrandi constitutionem vel consuetudinem nequaquam auferimus; sic si Missale hoc, quod nunc in lucem edi curavimus, iisdem magis placeret, de Episcopi, vel Praelati. Capitulique universi consensu, ut quibusvis non obstantibus, juxta illud Missas celebrare possint, permittimus; ex aliis vero omnibus Ecclesiis praefatis eorumdem Missalium usum tollendo, illaque penitus et omnio rejiciendo, ac huic Missali nostro nuper editio, nihil unquam addendum, detrahendum, aut immutandum esse decernendo, sub indignationis nostrae poena, hac nostra perpetuo valitura constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.

Mandantes ac districte omnibus et singulis Ecclesiarum praedictarum Patriarchis, Administratoribus, aliisque personis quacumque Ecclesiastica dignitate fulgentibus, etiamsi Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinales, aut cujusvis alterius gradus et praeeminentiae fuerint, illis in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipientes, ut ceteris omnibus rationibus et ritibus ex aliis Missalibus quantumvis vetustis hactenus observari consuetis, in posterum penitus omissis, ac plane rejectis, Missam juxta ritum, modum, ac normam, quae per Missale hoc a Nobis nunc traditur, de antent ac legant; neque in Missae celebratione alias caelemonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant.

Atque ut hoc ipsum Missale in Missa decantanda, aut recitanda in quibusvis Ecclesiis absque ullo conscientiae scrupulo, aut aliquarum poenarum, sententiarum et censurarum incursu, posthac omnino sequantur, eoque libere et licite uti possint et valeant, auctoritate Apostoloca, tenore praesentium, etiam perpetuo concedimus et indulgemus.

Neve Praesules, Administratores, Canonici, Capellani et alii quocumque nomine nuncupati Presbyteri saeculares, aut cujusvis Ordinis regulares, ad Missam aliter quam a nobis statutum est, celebrandam teneantur: neque ad Missale hoc immutandum a quolibet cogi et compelli, praesentesve litterae ullo unquam tempore revocari, aut moderari possint, sed firmae semper et validae in suo exsistant robore, similiter statuimus et declaramus. Non obstantibus praemissis, ac constitutionibus, et ordinationibus Apostolicis, ac in Provincialibus et Synodalibus Conciliis editis generalibus, vel specialibus constitutionibus, et ordinationibus, nec non Ecclesiarum praedictarum usu, longissima et immemorabili praescriptione, non tamen supra ducento annos, roborato, statutis et consuetudinibus contrariis quibuscumque.

Volumus autem et eadem auctoritate decernimus, ut post hujus nostrae constitutionis, ac Missalis editionem, qui in Romana adsunt Curia Presbyteri post mensem; qui vero intra montes, post tres; et qui ultra montes incolunt, post sex menses, aut cum primum illis Missale hoc venale propositum fuerit, juxta illud Missam decantare, vel legere teneantur.

Quod ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus purgatum praeservetur, omnibus in nostro et Sanctae Ecclesiae Romanae Domino mediate, vel immeditate subjecto commorantibus impressoribus, sub amissionis librorum, ac centum ducatorum auri Camerae Apostoliae ipso facto applicandorum: aliis vero in quacumque orbis parte consistentibus, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae, et aliis arbitrari nostri poenis, ne sine nostra vel speciali ad id Apostolici Commissarii in eisdem partibus a nobis constituendi, licentia, ac nisi per eumdem Commissarium eidem impresspri Missalis exemplum, ex quo aliorum imprimendorum ab ipso impressore erit accipienda norma, cum Missali in Urbe secundum magnum impressionem impresso collatum fuisse, et concordare, nec in ullo penitus discrepare prius plena fides facta fuerit, imprimere, vel proponere, vel recipere ullo modo audeant, vel praesumant, auctoritate Apostolica et tenore praesentium similibus inhibemus.

Verum, quia difficile esset praesentes litteras ad quaeque Christiani orbis loca deferri, ac primo quoque tempore in omnium notitiam perferri, illas ad Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Florae de more publicari et affigi, ac earumdem litterarum exemplis etiam impressis, ac manu alicujus publici tabellionis subscriptis, nec non sigillo personae in dignitate Ecclesiastica constitutae munitis, eamdem prorsus indubitatam fidem ubique gentium et locorum, haberi praecipimus, quae praesentibus haberetur, si ostenderentur vel exhiberentur.

Nulli ergo omnio hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temeratio contraire.

Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Patri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum.

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesimo septuagesimo, pridie Idus Julii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto.

H. Cumin Caesar Glorierius

A Note on the Latin Phrase perfidus Iudaeus by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

2007-07-19T21:01:00.000-04:00

Since the Second World war there has be a worldwide movement to understand the underlying causes of the racist ideology of the Nazi Party. Some writers, confusing their zeal to do all that can be done so as to prevent such horrific crimes happening again with their own personal hatred of Christ and His Church have attacked traditional phrases and terms used by Catholics, asserting that these are the seeds that led to the anti-Semitism of Adolf Hitler and his government. Alas, not a few of such authors have been or claim to be Catholics themselves.

Among the terms targeted as "anti-Semitic" is the Latin phrase perfidus Iudaeus, "perfidious Jew", which appears in the most ancient texts of the Roman Rite during Good Friday and among many authors of western Europe, even saints and doctors of the Church, as St. Bonaventure does at the beginning of his "Collationes de septem donis Spiritus Sancti."

This criticism is wholly false. First, the charge that there was a medieval anti-Semitic racism is advanced on shaky grounds. Proponents of this theory often fail to recognize that among the various movements of the human will, hatred, like many others, has many manifestations. As a passion of the will, it is directed against what is perceived as a threat. As a virtue, it is directed against evil; as a vice, it is directed against the good, or in an inordinate manner against what is partly evil and partly good. In short, not all hatred is the same hatred. And thus without identical causes, hatred has no heritage.

To hate a person is quite different than to hate the error or vice in which he is involved. Christ and His Church have always taught hatred of sin and not hatred of sinners. This is the distinguishing characteristic of the New Testament. However, since Christ's promulgation of the Gospel, not everyone has received this good news. If someone freely refuses the Gospel, certainly no sane and impartial judge would lay the responsibility for their actions after such a refusal upon the Church. The Church for Her part has always condemned all forms of hatred which wish, desire, intend or rejoice in the destruction or damnation of one's neighbor: this is in accord with Christ's commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." As such, racial hatred of the Jewish people is a mortal sin, worthy of eternal damnation. That many Europeans have promoted irrational and unjust hatred of various ethnic groups, the Jews included, is a fact of history; however, to be honest, every historian must recognize that there have been many different sponsoring groups and differing reasons motivating it.

Christ is a Jew, the Blessed Virgin Mary, His ever-Virgin Mother is a Jewess. The Apostles who founded the Catholic Church are Jews, as well as many of Her greatest saints. In this sense, the word "Jew" is being used in an ethnic or racial sense. However this is not the sense used by the Catholic Church in Her liturgy, nor of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, when they speak of the perfidus Iudaeus. In Latin, Iudaeus has various meanings. Originally it meant an inhabitant or citizen of the province of Judea (political sense). By extension, since this region was nearly wholly occupied by descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, this term also referred to a racial or ethnic category. Since this people also distinguished themselves by their religious customs, it also obtained a religious sense.

As a term reflecting religious adherence to the Law after the coming of Christ, St. John the Evangelist, in his Gospel, uses the Greek equivalent of Iudaeus to refer to his own countrymen and kinsmen, who rejected Christ. The other New Testament writers do the same. Following the Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the Saints and nearly all ecclesiastical writers for the next 1900 years employ the term Iudaeus in this sense.

Hence, it is that the Traditional Roman Rite and saints such as St. Bonaventure speak of the perfidus Iudaeus. Frequently citing scripture and reliving the events of Christ's life, the Church adopted a dramatic style in which these happenings were retold as present events. The rejection of the Jewish Messiah by the Jews was thus aptly described in the liturgy and ecclesiastical texts as an act of treachery and disbelief. The term perfidus Iudaeus thus refers properly, in a Catholic context, to the individual, who adopting or retaining the Law and its observances after the Ascension of Christ, knowingly and without reason or justice rejects Christ's claims to be the Son of God. Typically, in the liturgy this individual is associated with the crowd of citizenry from Jerusalem, who in fact shouted, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matthew 27:25). It is noteworthy that the Jewish tax-collector, Matthew, was the one to record these historic words for posterity). In this manner the term has only a religious sense in the context of Catholic liturgy and theology.

With the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob slain by the Romans at the request of the religious representatives of the Jewish People and with the consent of the crowds of Jerusalem, in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jewish prophets from Moses to Malachi and of Christ Himself, it was not surprising that the Catholic Church, which was founded by the direct, personal command of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, would retain the memory of this and re-echo the truth of these events to all the world.

That the Jewish Nation endures to this day the effects of the sin of their forbearers, especially of the rabbis, who to cement their rejection of their own Messiah, excluded inspired books of the Old Testament (Wisdom, Maccabees, etc.), and composed over the centuries a commentary on the Law, the Talmud, which reinterpreted the accepted meaning of the Moses and the Prophets in an anti-Christian manner, is an undoubted fact, testified to by the history and events of the last 2000 years: they remain without prophets, revelation, without a Temple, without any possibility of fulfilling the proscriptions of the Law. Many Jews have fallen into superstition and diabolism, through the practices of the kabbalah: belief in the non-existence or non-eternity of Hell, of reincarnation, in the ontological superiority of the racial Jew to the non-Jew, are commonplace. To be a Jew today, for a Jew, is primarily a genealogic or ethnic classification; secondarily a religious one. Hence the common misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's use of the term "Jew", particularly by secular Jews today.

If the Church and Her representatives would ever forget the sin of the Jewish People of old, who rejected their own Messiah, it would be a most tragic offense against His brethren according to the flesh. Moreover, it is the very central dogma of Christianity, that the God of Israel became a Jew to save both Jew and Gentile. Thus, to exclude the Jewish People from salvation would be an extreme offence against the Divine Mercy. And since salvation is offered to those who both believe in the Messiah and repent of their sins; the memory and fact of this unique sin of the Jewish People is an integral and inalienable part of the heritage of salvation which belongs to both them and to the Church: for unless the Jewish people recognize that they have indeed rejected their own Messiah, how will they every come to believe in Him and be saved? For there is no salvation except in the name Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), and in His Church, the Catholic Church.

Hence, it is that the Latin phrase "perfidus Iudaeus", found in the Good Friday liturgy of the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V, is an inalienable and just part of Catholic liturgy, theology, and ecclesiastical writings, and its proper use a work of charity, justice and mercy to the Jewish people. On the other hand, to transfer this proper meaning to racial categories would be both heretical and diabolic. It is important, therefore, for all Catholics that the correct meaning of this term be retained and understood. If some catholics have altered this term to racial categories or abandoned it out of irenicism, they have justly merited to be condemned by all the faithful and especially by the Pope.

Taken from the June 27, 2003 edition of Seattle Catholic.

The Crown of Thorns

2007-04-06T08:15:00.000-04:00

Respect for the Crown of Authority by Christ

The Mystery of the Crown of Thorns by A Passionist Father

Preserving Christian Publications, Inc.
Albany, NY

"Thou shouldst not have any power against Me; unless it were given thee from above." [Jn 19: 11]

The words and actions of the Roman Governor, Pilate, have afforded an opportunity, for studying the origin and nature of authority. From the doctrine and example of our Divine Master, we should learn our duties towards all our legitimate superiors. In the foregoing chapter, having had occasion to make some general reflections, about the obligations of persons in dignity, now justice demands, that we should also make some few remarks about the principal duties of Christian subjects, towards their respective superiors.

Superiors, though powerful for good, or for evil, are comparatively few in number; whilst, the vast majority of mankind, has ever been, and ever shall be, in a condition of subjection to authority. Many persons are occasionally raised to some temporary dignity or office; but they have to live in subordinate position for the rest of their life. Moreover, even those who actually occupy places of dignity and power have higher superiors above them, to whom they pay homage and obedience. "For," as the wise man says, "he that is high hath another higher; and there are others still higher than those. Moreover, there is the king that reigneth over all the land subject to him." [Eccles. 5: 8]

Finally, above all earthly dignities and powers, above magistrates, governors, presidents, kings, emperors, autocrats, there is the supreme sovereign of Heaven and earth, the Most High and Omnipotent God, the real source and center of all dignity and power, before Whom every knee must bow in Heaven, on earth, and in Hell. We must therefore make some remarks on the duty of respect and obedience, which the vast majority of mankind owe to superiors. Jesus Christ crowned with thorns will be our Master and Model.

FIRST SECTION

RESPECT OF JESUS FOR THE AUTHORITY OF HIS HEAVENLY FATHER

The great Apostle Paul says: "Let every soul be subject to higher power; For there is no power, but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God." [Rom 13: 1] All those who understand well this sublime maxim of order and subordination become the most pious souls towards God, and the most humble and docile subjects towards their respective superiors.

Our Divine Savior knew this principle in speculation, and practiced it with greater perfection, than any other person has ever done upon earth. The first and principal object of His Incarnation was to make known to the world the power and dignity of His Heavenly Father; and to lead men by His example and doctrines, to honor His Divine Majesty, and to obey His commands. Corning into the world, Jesus said: "Sacrifice and oblation Thou, O Father, wouldst not; but a body Thou hast fitted to Me. Holocausts for sin did not please Thee, then I said: Behold I come to do Thy will O God." [Heb. 10: 17] During His whole life upon earth, our Divine Savior kept constantly in view, the honor and homage due to His Heavenly Father, and in all His actions, He studied and strove to accomplish His adorable will. This was the real meaning of the words which, at the age of twelve, He addressed to His holy Mother in the temple of Jerusalem, in the presence of the learned doctors of the law, and which these men were unable to understand: "Did you not know that I must be about the things that are My Father's." [Lk. 2: 40] The will of His Heavenly Father was the element and food of His life upon earth. "My food is to do the will of Him Who sent Me, that I may perfect this world." [Jn. 4: 34] He solemnly protested that He would not move a hand, or foot, or utter a single word, except in conformity with the will of His Father, and to promote His honor and glory. "I can do nothing of Myself . . . because I seek not My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." [Jn. 5: 30] As the will of God was the food of our Savior's life; so He made it the chalice of His Passion, the drink of His agony, and His Viaticum in death. In His mortal agony in the garden of Gethsemane, He said: "The chalice, which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it." [Jn. 18: 2] "Father not My will, but Thine be done." [Lk. 22: 42] Finally, we learn that our Divine Lord and Master sacrificed His Life upon a Cross, to do homage to His Father's supreme dignity; and in perfect obedience to His adorable will. "Jesus," St. Paul says, "Jesus was obedient even unto death of the Cross." [Philip 2: 8] Behold here a most perfect model of piety and devotion towards God.

SECOND SECTION

RESPECT OF JESUS FOR THE DIGNITY OF HIS MOTHER

Our parents, in the order of nature, are next to the Godhead, from whom all paternity in Heaven and on earth is derived. [Ephes. 3: 15] Parents being the fountain-head of human society, are the first visible and living representatives of our God-Creator upon earth; they are the first created source of dignity and power among men. The Eternal Son of God, wishing to become the Son of man, selected for Himself a mother upon earth. We may be sure that He will honor her. It was in respect for her dignity, that he chose her from the noblest royal dynasty that has ever exalted and illustrated human nature.

He wrought, in her honor, the most surprising prodigies. More wonderful than the miraculous opening of the Red Sea or the suspended course of the river Jordan, this Divine Son, in regard for the future dignity of His chosen mother, opened for her the tide of life; and rolled back the muddy wave of Original Sin. She came forth all fair, and in perfect holiness, whence all the children of men are defiled, and born in sin, "How beautiful art thou, My love, how beautiful . . . thou art all fair, O My love, and there is no spot in thee." [Cantic. 4] He enriched her pure soul with His choicest gifts, and replenished her Immaculate Heart with all the graces of His filial love. From the first instant of her miraculous conception, Mary became the dearest object upon earth of the adorable Trinity, and Each of the three Divine Persons vied with the Other in the manifestations of Their affection. The highest Archangel proclaims her praises, and salutes her with words never heard before by human ears. In admiration of the sublime dignity of the Mother of God, to which this humble Virgin of Nazareth is now going to be raised, the Archangel in the most respectful manner says to her: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women thou hast found grace with God, because He desires to become thy Son . . . Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth the incarnate God as thy true Son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most high and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David, His Father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end . . . The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore, also the Holy One that shall be born in thee shall be called the son of God . . . And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word." [Lk. 1: 28] Thus, the humble handmaid was honored before Angels and men, with the highest dignity possible for any creature upon earth, or in Heaven. More happy than St. Paul, Mary, on this glorious occasion, is elevated to the clear contemplation, and the ravishing enjoyment of the beatific vision of the Divinity.

While the Angelic intelligences admire in Heaven the sublimity of this truly Divine dignity of the Mother of God, Saint Elizabeth praises and honors it upon Earth. Being visited at her house in Judea, by her most holy cousin, soon after she had been raised to the dignity of her Divine maternity, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, and her infant leaped in her womb, through supernatural joy, and she cried out with a loud voice, and said "Blessed art thou, O Mary, among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? . . . For behold, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed. because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my Spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Because He hath regarded the humility of His handmaid:

For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." [Lk. 1]

This prophecy has been verified ever since. Her Divine Son, Who inwardly inspired these words, began to realize them at His Birth. Being lovingly clasped in the arms of His Mother, and sweetly nestling upon her virginal bosom, the Incarnate Son of God brought legions of Angels from Heaven to sing His praises, and to honor her, from whom He was made the Son of man. He called the poor and the rich, the low and the great, shepherds and kings, Jews and Gentiles to the grotto of Bethlehem to adore His Incarnate Divinity, and to venerate His immaculate Mother. It is His will that all generations should call her blessed. Thanks to Jesus' filial piety this august Mother is praised, honored and venerated in the Catholic Church in every part of the world. Hence these humble pages could not remain silent.

As this most dutiful Son "advanced in age, wisdom and grace before God, and before men," so He gave new proofs of affectionate respect for His worthy Mother. To screen her from the very shadow of unjust suspicion, He had most wisely provided her with a most holy, most noble and affectionate husband. Joseph was the protector of her virginal purity, and the greatest admirer of her extraordinary sanctity. He was the faithful companion of her travels, and the most careful provider in all her wants. Our Lord, to perfect and reward their virtue, and to honor their dignity, but more especially that of His virginal Mother, passed thirty years of His human life in their happy company; and spent only three in His public ministry, for the rest of mankind. His uniform conduct, during the thirty years of His private life, is described in few words, by the inspired Chronicler of His infancy and childhood. "He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them." [Lk. 2: 51]

This Divine Child went down, indeed, in humility to be subject to His earthly parents; Who was profoundly adored by all the Angels of Heaven. But the more deeply Jesus humbled Himself, the more He exalted the dignity of maternal authority. In respectful homage to the charitable wishes of His Mother, and at the slightest indication of her secret desire, this dutiful Son wrought a more stupendous prodigy than that of Josue when he stopped the course of the sun and moon; [Josue. 10: 12] or that not less astonishing miracle of the prophet Isaias who pushed the sun back ten degrees. [Is. 30: 8] This our Lord did at the Marriage Feast of Cana, when to please and honor His Mother He accelerated the time fixed by the eternal decree of His Heavenly Father, to work His first public miracle, by changing ordinary water into the nature of exquisite wine [Jn. 2: 3] On the Cross of Calvary, this loving Son forgot His Own sufferings, to honor His afflicted and sorrowful Mother. Lastly, after her death, He suspended in her behalf the common laws of nature, and anticipating in her honor the joys of her resurrection, raised His most holy Mother from the grave; and in body and soul brought her in triumph, to the highest throne of glory, in the eternal kingdom of Heaven.

Behold, then how the Incarnate Son of God, and Child of Mary, honors His Mother. He has constituted her Queen of Heaven and earth, of Angels and men; and all generations shall call her blessed in her Divine maternity.

We will close our humble but sincere tribute to the Divine Son and Virgin Mother, by the more authoritative, and eloquent words of St. Bernard:

We should not be surprised, he says, to learn from revelations, that God the Father has generated God the Son; for it is natural to Him, by the act of His Divine intelligence, to produce a Word in every respect equal to Himself, God of God. But it has been, and it continues to be a most wonderful prodigy, that a woman should conceive, and bring forth a Divine Son. This event demanded that this privileged Mother should, in a certain manner, be raised to a kind of equality with the Divinity, by an infusion of immense graces and perfections never granted to any other creature. Hence, I believe that no human, or Angelic intelligence, has ever been able to fathom the bottom of that immense ocean of all the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost, that were poured down upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, when she conceived in her immaculate womb the Son of God . . . Mary the blessed, by her free consent to become the mother of the Eternal Word, merited more than all Angels, or men combined together, can merit in all their good thoughts, pious words, and virtuous actions. These could only merit the reward of eternal glory according to their various states and degrees. But this thrice happy Virgin, by her admirable consent, has merited to obtain the total extinction of every incentive to sin; the primacy and dominion over the whole universe, the plenitude of all graces, of all virtues, of all gifts, of every blessing, of all the fruits of the Holy Ghost; the perfection of all wisdom, the knowledge of all languages, the spirit of prophecy, the direction of spirits, and full power of working miracles. By this consent Blessed Mary has deserved her fecundity in the virginal state, and the maternity of the Son of God. She has merited to be made the Star of the Sea, the Gate of Heaven, and above all to be called, and to be in reality the Queen of Mercy. Hence, Solomon justly said: "Many daughters have gathered together, in riches, thou hast surpassed them all." [Prov. 31: 29] [St. Bernard, 1. Conclus, 61 art 1. Cap 12 A Lapide, in Cap. 38]

We are fully satisfied with this a magnificent eulogium, which shows how the Incarnate Word of God honors and rewards the dignity of His most holy Mother. We have expatiated at some length upon this subject partly because we desire to concur in the full realization of the prophecy, that all generations shall call Blessed, the Divine Mother of our thorn-crowned King, to Whom we have dedicated this humble volume. We feel most confident, that both Mother and Son will be pleased with our good intention.

Our second motive for extending our remark has been to offer all Christian children, the most perfect model of filial respect towards parents, that we could find. As parental authority is the first and most sacred in human society, so we are fully and firmly convinced that loving, respectful and obedient children, will grow up into law-abiding and useful citizens. Domestic discipline is the first and best school in Christian society. We must now return to our Divine Master.

THIRD SECTION

RESPECT OF JESUS FOR THE PRIESTLY DIGNITY

As parents, in the order of nature, are the first dignity and authority, claiming the respectful homage of children; so the true ministers of God, are the first and highest dignity in the spiritual and supernatural order upon earth. If parents are the loving representatives and agents of God's creative fecundity, and the hand of His beneficent providence; the sacred ministers of God are the eye of His wisdom, the voice of His law, the vessels of His holiness, and the living channels of His graces to mankind. The priests of God are to human souls, what parents are to human bodies. They are our spiritual fathers. Speaking of the Christian priesthood, St. John Chrysostom says: "Consider the priestly dignity. A priest is a man upon earth; but he is elevated to the sublime rank of a Divine agent. He lives and works among men, and for men; but his actions are supernatural and Divine. The priestly office is not, and cannot be of human institution. The wise philosophers, and the most enlightened statesmen, the greatest generals, with the most powerful monarchs, cannot constitute an order of men, like that of the Christian priesthood. No man upon earth, no Saint in Heaven, no Angel, no Archangel, no Heavenly power, no creature whatever, can institute such sublime dignity and office; that those who live in a body of flesh upon earth, may exercise a greater than an Angelic ministry." [St. John Chrys. De dignit, sacerdotis Lib. 2.] It is evident, that God alone can communicate to His sacred ministers, the power of Consecrating the Body of His Incarnate Son, and of absolving well disposed sinners from all their sins.
<> We are taught to measure the height of a building, from the length of its shadow. From the long and large shadow of the Jewish priesthood, we may form some imperfect idea of the sublime dignity of the Catholic priesthood. In the sixth chapter of this book, we had occasion to allude to the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, when we remarked how severely God punished those ambitious men, who attempted to usurp this dignity and office. In a subsequent occasion, King Saul, by the command of God, was deprived forever of his royal dignity, because once only he attempted to offer a sacrifice, which belonged, by right, to the priestly office. When King Ozias presumed to offer incense in the sanctuary of God's temple in Jerusalem, the High Priest, Azarias, accompanied by eighty zealous priests, bravely withstood the sacrilegious king, and said to him: "It doth not belong to thee, alias, to bum incense to the Lord,. but to the priests . . . who are consecrated for this ministry." Because, however, the king in his pride and arrogance, insisted in attempting this profanation, God miraculously covered him on the spot with leprosy, when he was thrust out of the temple; and died through this loathsome and humiliating disease. [2 Paral. 26: 18] The superiority of the priestly dignity, to that of earthly potentates in the spiritual and supernatural order, is shown in the Bible from the fact, that in the old law, the High Priest Samuel, by the command of God, made Saul, king; and deposed him for presuming to perform, once only, one single act of the priestly office, and on that occasion, He selected and anointed as king over Israel, the youthful David, son of Isai. [1 Kings 15 & 16] By the command of God, priests alone could minister at the altar, and offer sacrifice to Him. They were constituted the teachers, interpreters and judges, of God's holy laws, for every class of persons. The people were strictly commanded to listen respectfully to their voice, as the visible angels and ambassadors of God. "For the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they, [the people,] shall seek the law at his mouth; because he is the angel of the Lord of Hosts." [Malach. 2: 7]

Let us see now, how our Divine Lord and Master has honored the dignity, and respected the authority of the priesthood. We should beforehand observe, that He is the first source and center of all priestly dignity and power. Jesus is the supreme and eternal Pontiff, according to the order of Melchisedech; and He became man to abrogate the Aaronic priesthood of the old law, and to substitute for it a more exalted dignity, and a more extensive, and effective power. [Heb. 7 & 8] Nevertheless, He manifested on every occasion great regard for the Jewish priesthood. He honored the Jewish priesthood, by selecting from it His mother, a near relative of Elizabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron. [Luke 1: 5 & 36] His first visit upon earth, soon after His Incarnation and several months before His Birth, was to the house of Zachary, a priest of the house of Abia. [Lk. 1: 5] Hence, this holy Jewish priest learned the great mystery of the Incarnation, and the arrival of the expected Messias even before Saint Joseph, the virginal spouse of His immaculate Mother. At His Birth, our Lord sent a miraculous star to invite kings to His cradle; but He wished to be carried in person to the temple of Jerusalem to honor the Jewish priesthood. If our most holy Redeemer could not approve of the vicious conduct of some of the chief priests; yet He ever paid respect to their sacred office, and dignity; and exhorted His hearers and disciples to carefully distinguish the personal behavior, from the official dignity of the priests of God. The faults of a priest are personal acts; but His dignity and office are gifts and privileges of God. Our Divine Savior knew and foretold that the Jewish priests had conspired against His life. He knew that they were His mortal enemies, and would be the principal authors of His greatest sufferings, deep humiliations, and cruel Death on the Cross; nevertheless, though He refused to speak to King Herod, He readily answered, during His trial, every question of the high priest, Caiphas; and in this unworthy man, our blessed Lord respected the sacredness of the priestly dignity.
If the very shadow of Peter is honored we may justly conclude that higher honors, and greater respect will be shown for his real person. We may begin to learn the grave nature and sublime dignity of the Catholic priesthood, from the length of preparation required by our Divine Lord, before He consented to confer it upon man. The Eternal Son of God has assumed human nature, that He may purify, may sanctify, and elevate it to the sublime dignity of the Christian priesthood. He defers this, the most important of all His Divine actions upon earth, to the very last day of His life. Who can tell the care our Divine Master used; the trials He had to undergo; the patience He exercised in preparing during more than three years, His disciples and Apostles for the grand dignity of the Christian priesthood?
. . .

This most High God, this great Lord of Heaven and earth, is satisfied with a stable at His Birth; He contents Himself to love and work like an humble mechanic, in the carpenter's shop of His adopted father. During the three years of His apostolic life through Palestine, he cheerfully embraces every opportunity of practicing poverty, and of exercising His cherished virtue of humility, and self-abasement. But when the memorable evening arrived, on which Jesus intends to raise men to the sacred dignity of the Christian priesthood He cannot consent to go to a stable or a shop, or even to an ordinary house. He will use one of the most magnificent halls that can be procured in the royal city of Jerusalem. Our Divine Lord desires to perform His first Ordination in a richly carpeted hall, in order that, through the unusual magnificence of the place, the Apostles may begin to perceive how sublime is the dignity to which they are going to be raised on that ever memorable night. On this occasion our Savior procured "A dining room furnished." [Mk. 16: 15] Adorned with green boughs and fresh flowers and splendidly lighted. [A Lapide, Ibid.] It was on this solemn occasion, that our blessed Lord celebrated His first High Mass, at which He Consecrated bread and wine; and by the most wonderful prodigy changed them into the substance of His Sacred Body and Blood. It was at this grand High Mass, that the twelve Apostles were raised to the sublime dignity of the Catholic priesthood; when they received from our Divine Savior, the power of offering the same Sacrifice, of Consecrating, as He did, and of Ordaining other priests who should continue to offer daily, this Divine and august Sacrifice to the end of the world.

These great truths we learn from the first three Evangelists, and from St. Paul, who says: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye, and eat; this is My Body, which shall be delivered for you, do this for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also, the chalice . . . Saying, this chalice is the new testament in My Blood, this do ye, as often as you shall drink it, for the commemoration of Me, for as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice you shall show the death of the Lord until He come. " [Cor. 11: 23] "Immensa infinita Sacerdotis dignitas," [exclaims St. Ephraim De Sacerdotio] From the example and doctrine of this great Apostle of the Gentiles, we learn that this sublime dignity, power and office of the Catholic priesthood, was through the Apostles of our Lord, communicated to other men. In fact St. Paul was not present with our Lord in the supper room. His conversion took place three years after. But he tells us that he and other bishops and priests, offered the same Sacrifice like the rest of the Apostles. "The chalice of benedictions which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? And the bread which we break is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? [Cor. 10: 16] And in another place he says: "We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat, who serve the tabernacle." [Heb. 13: 10] The continuation of the Catholic priesthood is essential to the Church of Jesus Christ, wherein, according to the repeated commands of our Lord, the holy Sacrifice must be offered daily, and Sacraments must be administered to men, to the end of time. "Do ye this, our Lord said, in commemoration of Me." . . . "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this chalice, you shall show the Death of the Lord until He come." From other Epistles of the holy apostle we learn that bishops, priests, and deacons, were instituted wherever Christians were established. He wrote to Titus, whom he consecrated bishop, "for this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst Ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee." [Tit. 1: 5] "Ingens et divina dignitas," says Dionysius [De Eccles. H. Cap. 3] We must now return to our Divine Lord, Who has other honors and privileges in store for His sacred ministers. Besides the sublime power of Order, through which he conferred on His priests the Divine prerogatives of Consecrating His sacred Body and Blood, He communicated to them the most extensive jurisdiction over the souls of men.

In the person of St. Peter our Divine Lord conferred the sublime and extensive power over the souls of men to the Pope, the supreme visible head of the Church. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,. and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosened also in Heaven." [Mt. 16: 18] This grand promise was fulfilled by our Savior after His glorious Resurrection, when He commanded Peter to feed His sheep and lambs. [Jn. 19: 15] To the rest of the Apostles, and to all the bishops and priests of His Church, our Lord said: "Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosened also in Heaven." [Mt. 18: 18]

After His Resurrection, our Divine Master confirmed this power and more fully explained its object. "As the Father hath sent Me, so I also send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them, and He said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." [Jn 20: 23] Here is the Divine commission, stamped by the broad seal of Heaven, by virtue of which the pastors of Christ's holy Church absolve repenting sinners, after their humble and sincere Confession.

St. John Chrysostom says: "The Eternal Father has given all power to His Son, Who says, "All power is given to Me in Heaven and earth." [Mt. 28: 18] But I see that the same power is communicated to His priests by God the Son . . . These sacred ministers possess now more power than Almighty God has ever been willing to grant to His Angels or Archangels in Heaven." [Lib. 3 de Sacred. Cap 3] St. Bernard styles priests the parents of Jesus Christ, "Parentes Christi." St. Augustine exclaims: "Oh, truly venerable dignity, in whose hands the Son of God is Incarnate. The most blessed Mother of Jesus opened Heaven, and brought the eternal Son of God once only in her virginal womb; but the priest brings Him upon the altar in every Mass. In the womb of Mary the Son of God was passible and mortal; but in the hand of the priest, He is immortal and impassible." These are the words of St. Bernardine of Siena. All this is amply sufficient to show, how highly our most holy and Divine Master has honored the dignity of the priesthood, in the Old and New Testament. Our duty is to imitate His example.

We must now proceed to consider, how our Divine Lord has honored and respected civil authority.

FOURTH SECTION

RESPECT OF JESUS FOR CIVIL AUTHORITY

All power and authority emanating from God, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that all those who devoutly honor God, will invariably honor and respect all persons, that have by God been raised to any position of dignity and power upon earth. Devout children will always honor, love, respect, and obey their parents.
Pious Christians have always a profound respect for the sacred character of the ministers of God. And, because civil superiors are also in a lower sphere than the ministers of God's power and justice; so every sincere Christian, and practical Catholic, will respect their authority, and do homage to their dignity. St. Paul says: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers; For there is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear, for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." [Rom. 13: 1]

These sublime and solid principles of Christian jurisprudence and morality, were dictated to the apostolic Doctor of the Gentiles by our Lord, Jesus Christ. But according to his maxim, and uniform conduct, our Divine Master ever practiced, what He intended to teach. Let us see then, how He showed, in practice, His respect for civil authority.

1. On the very threshold of the palace of civil dignity and power, we should reflect that all power and authority emanated from Him, to whom all power is given both in Heaven and upon earth. For whatever good quality, whatever dignity or power come from God to man, must be transmitted by, and through our Lord Jesus Christ . . . Who is the head of all principality and power. [Coloss. 2: 10] "For He is above all principality and power and virtue and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." [Ephes. 1: 21] Whatever, therefore, may be the civil dignity, power, or title of any potentate upon earth; it should by Christian faith be considered a badge of honor conferred upon him by the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. [Apo. 19: 16] By the selection of His blessed Mother, and adopted father, from a kingly race, our Divine Lord manifested His high regard for the dignity of man. Even before His Birth, He recognized the authority of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when in obedience to his decree, he inspired his Virgin Mother and St. Joseph, to undertake a long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, in the very depth of winter. His birth in a stable, was an admirable act of obedience, in homage to the civil authority of a Pagan monarch. The holy name of Mary, of Joseph, and very likely of Jesus, on the roll book, or imperial register, testify our Divine Savior's respect for civil authority, and His ready obedience to human laws . . . And it came to pass that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled . . . And all went to be enrolled, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child. And it came to pass, that when they went there . . . She brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn . . . [Lk. 2: 1] Behold how soon, and with what inconvenience to Himself, and to His young Mother, and adopted father, our Infant Savior manifests His respect for civil authority.

Moreover, we are informed by the illustrious Cardinal Baronius, on the authority of Suida and Nicephorus, that soon after our Savior's Birth, our Blessed Lady appeared to Caesar Augustus in the Roman Capitol, holding the Divine Infant in her arms. The proper name of this emperor was Octavius; he was a nephew of the famous emperor, general, and historian, Julius Caesar. Octavius had been supernaturally informed of the imminent Birth of our Divine Lord, Who was to silence all Pagan oracles, and destroy the idols. In memory and honor of this apparition, this most happy and best of Roman Emperors that reigned before Constantine, had a magnificent altar erected on capitol hill, with this inscription "Ara primogeniti Dei, namely, "This altar is dedicated to the Incarnate Son of God." A little above three centuries after the remarkable event, the Emperor Constantine erected on the same site a large church in honor of our Blessed Lady, which still exists at the present day, under the ordinary title of "Ara Coeli." [A Lapide in Luc. 2: 1]

Behold, the holy bishop St. Fulgentius exclaims, behold, O impious King Herod, that there is no danger to thy kingly dignity in the Birth of this Heavenly Child. He does not wish to be thy successor on the throne, but He desires to have faithful believers in every part of the world. "Nec ideo natus est uttibisuccedat, sed ut in eum mundus fideliter credat." [Serm. 5 De. Epiph.] If the instances we have given could only be used as a favorable interpretation of the respectful regard of an ordinary man for human authority, we should reflect that the Divine Infant of Bethlehem is the Incarnate wisdom of God, Whose every act is full of important signification. We possess, however, more explicit proofs of our Savior's respect for civil authority in His more advanced age. St. Matthew relates, that on a certain occasion the hypocritical Pharisees consulted among themselves how to ensnare our Divine Master in His speech. For this malicious object, they sent some of their disciples with several officers of King Herod, to our Lord saying to Him: "Master, we know that Thou art a true speaker, and teacher in the way of God, in truth; neither carest Thou for any man; for Thou dost not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what dost Thou think; is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? . . . But Jesus knowing their wickedness said: Why do you tempt Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the coin of the tribute. And they offered Him a penny. And Jesus said to them: whose image and inscription is this? They say to Him, Caesar's. Then He said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. [Mt. 22: 15] Such are the maxims of this Divine teacher of Christian jurisprudence. It is impossible to find any other more wise, more just, more solid, more comprehensive. But, the first part should never be separated from the second which is the most essential. Our duty to civil authority cannot dispense us from our higher obligations to God; but on the contrary, this is the foundation and support of the other. We will respect human authority in proportion as we respect the authority of God. Action however, is the most evident proof of our convictions. Many persons are as prompt and eloquent in propounding theories, as they are remiss in practicing them. But our Divine Master did not belong to this class of teachers. He was generally very concise in announcing theoretical principles, but very exact and perfect in acting upon them. He even taught more by His example, than by His words. Coepit Jesu facere et docere.

The following was one of His first maxims. "Whosoever shall do and teach, the same shall be called great, in the kingdom of Heaven." [Mt. 5: 19]

According to the assertion of Orosius, assented to by the learned Cornelius A Lapide: Our Lord Jesus Christ became a Roman citizen, by the fact that His parents and Himself, were after His Birth, enrolled in Bethlehem in the Roman register. As the King of Kings and Savior of the world, our Lord was not bound in justice to pay any tribute to any earthly monarch. Moreover He was so poor that He did not possess the necessary amount of money demanded. But He works a miracle, rather than fail in giving this practical proof of His subjection, to human authority and obedience to civil laws. This fact is related in all its beautiful simplicity by St. Matthew in the following words: "When they were come to Capharnum they that received the didrachma; came to Peter, and said to him: Doth not your master pay the didrachma? He said yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him saying: What is thy opinion Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute, or custom, of their own children or strangers? And he said of strangers. Jesus said to him: then the children are free. But, that we may not scandalize them, go thou to the sea, and cast in a hook; and that fish which shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater: take that and give it to them for Me and thee." [Mt. 17: 23] How many instructive lessons are contained in this fact! In His extreme poverty our Divine Lord works a miracle to pay the head, or personal tribute not only for Himself, but also for His Apostle Peter. He works a miracle to avoid giving any occasion of scandal, and this is charity. He consents to pay a tribute to which He is not bound in strict justice. This is an admirable act of respect for civil authority. In paying the tribute, He equals Himself to His humble Apostle, a poor fisherman. Is this not profound humility? . . . In this humility however, our Lord teaches us the honor due to Peter, whom He equals to Himself, and also the respect due to the Roman Pontiff, His vicar upon earth. But we must return to our main subject.

Words in praise of authority are good; tributes for the support of its dignity are better: but the best proof of our profound respect for it is to suffer and die, when necessary in obedience to its laws. This is what we have now to consider in our Divine Master and Model.

Let us return to the palace of the Roman Governor. Pilate is the legitimate representative of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, as governor of Judea. As man our Lord is now placed under his jurisdiction by the chief priests, senators and magistrates of the Jewish people. Look at our Blessed Redeemer and Master, and consider His behavior.

We read in history, that the emperor Alexander the Great, having been severely wounded in battle by an arrow, and a painful surgical operation being required, was asked by the military surgeon, to allow himself to be bound for a short time. His answer on this occasion has been highly extolled. He said with an air of dignified haughtiness: "It is beneath the dignity of an emperor to be bound with cords". When the pious and dethroned King of France, Louis XVI, was by his rebellious subjects brought to the scaffold for public execution in Paris; he firmly refused to have his hands manacled and his arms pinioned before being beheaded; and prepared to repel the brutal executioners saying: "I will never allow it to be said that a King of France consented to be bound with cords like a coward, and manacled like a vile criminal." It was only when his faithful, brave, and prudent confessor proposed to the saintly monarch, the example of our Divine Lord, and warmly exhorted him to imitate it, that King Louis devoutly raising his eyes to Heaven, heaved a deep sigh, and extending his hands, mildly consented to endure this public humiliation.
But Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and Lord of lords, supreme Sovereign of Heaven and earth, of Angels and men. He is a God of infinite majesty, and of omnipotent power. Countless millions of Angels are in adoration before Him . . . with an act of His omnipotent will He could destroy all His enemies, and annihilate the whole world . . . Yet... behold, Christian reader, behold this Incarnate Son of God, meekly standing before the Roman Governor, bound in chains, like the lowest and worst of malefactors. Look at this Divine prisoner. His hands

Causes of the Crown of Thorns

The Mystery of the Crown of Thorns by A Passionist Father

Preserving Christian Publications, Inc. Albany, NY

PART ONE

"Transgressors shall all of them be plucked up as thorns, and they shall be set on fire." [2 Kings 23: 5]

1. These are words of inspiration, and refer to the thorny crown of our blessed Lord. They were uttered by holy David in his old age, and are a portion of the last words which this holy king, and prophet pronounced under a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost. David the son of Isai said: "The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me and His words by my tongue. The God of Israel said to me . . . Trangressors shall all of them be plucked up as thorns." These words of inspiration evidently refer to the Crown of Thorns of our Divine Savior and indicate the causes, which induced Him to wear upon His adorable Head, this terrible crown of pain and ignominy. This will form the subject matter of this present chapter.

2. Thorns seem to be the natural fuel for fire. Hence the Royal Prophet in this place says: Transgressors shall all of them be plucked up as thorns, which are not taken away with hands . . . but they shall be set on fire. As we have already observed, thorns are the effect of sin, and the most striking figure of sinners. Hence, St. Augustine says: "What do thorns signify but the condition of sinners who, like hedgehogs, are all over bristling with the thorns of sin," spinae quid significant, nisi peccatores, qui quasi ericiis spinae peccatorum cooperti sunt. [In Ps. 10] St. Basil says, that whenever he beheld a beautiful and sweet smelling rose, his heart was more deeply pained than his senses were gratified. He reflected that the rose, queen of flowers, is surrounded with sharp and crooked thorns, that bitterly reproached him for his sins, on account of which this earth has been condemned by the irritated justice of God to produce thorns and thistles. [St. Basil in Exame.] Hence, according to the opinion of this holy Doctor of the Church, the rose would have been free from thorns, if sin had never been committed by men. St. John Chrysostom affirms, that God did not originally create thorns upon earth, but, that He only permitted their growth in consequence of sin and as a punishment to sinners. No wonder, then, that sinners, like prickly thorns and thistles, are doomed to be burned up with fire, as holy David says: "All transgressors shall be plucked up as thorns . . . and shall be set on fire." To fire then we wretched sinners are condemned.

3. But happily for us, there are two very different kinds of fire. The first is the uncreated fire of God's eternal love. The second is the created fire of His irritated justice, prepared, and intended for the punishment of the rebellious Angels, and of all unhappy sinners. To deliver us from the fire of Hell, our merciful Savior brought with Him from Heaven the fire of His Divine love. It was in fact of this love, He spoke, when He said: I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, but that it be kindled? [Lk. 12: 49] Sinners, He says to us, sinners, like thorns and thistles, you are doomed to be burned with fire. In punishment of your transgressions, you should have to burn in Hell, during a miserable eternity in company with the devil, and all his wicked companions. It is however, in My power to offer to you, the blessed fire of My Divine love, which burns in the bosom of God from all eternity, in exchange for the terrible fire of Hell due to your crimes. Accept My love and I undertake to atone for all your sins. "I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, but, that it be kindled?"

Behold here the first formal cause of the Crown of Thorns. It is the goodness of God: It is the love and mercy of His Incarnate Son, Who with the Crown of Thorns assumed upon His Head, the responsibility of atoning for all the sins of mankind. The great St. Leo, the Pope says: Causa reparation is nostrae non est nisi misericordia Dei." [Serm. de jejun. 10. mens.] Origen says, our Lord Jesus Christ assumed the thorns of our sins, infixed upon His Head. These are His genuine words: "In spina illa corona suscepit [Jesus] spinas peccatorum nostrorum intexta in capite suo." [Tract. 35 in Mt. 27: 29] The Angelic doctor St. Thomas says: "These bloody thorns of our Savior's crown are intended to signify the stings of sin, with which our conscience is wounded. Our merciful Lord accepted these thorns as our substitute, because He undertook to suffer and die for our sins. [St. Thom. in Chap. 27 Matt.] He is truly the Good Shepherd Who thrusts His Head and Body within a thorny bush in order to disentangle the suffering sheep from its prickly branches by which she is surrounded, and held captive, in pain and hunger. Prompted by His love, He endures the pricks of the thorns in His effort to free His beloved sheep from suffering and death. His love and mercy was then the moving cause that induced our blessed Savior to endure the painful and ignominious Crown of Thorns. "In His love and in His mercy the prophet says: He redeemed them, and He carried them and lifted them up."

4. The second cause was the source of sin. Three conditions are essential to sin. Sufficient matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Whatever may be the matter of sin, no sin can be committed without the necessary knowledge of its malice, and the free deliberate consent of our will. Now knowledge is a prerogative of our mind, as consent is the free act of our will. Sin therefore is committed first in our mind, when, with full knowledge and deliberate consent we form in our head the resolution of doing anything morally wrong. Hence, St. Augustine says "that it is with the will that we do wrong, as it is with the will that we do good." "Voluntate peccatur, et bene agitur." All sins originate their malice in our mind. Sin is first conceived in the head, and consented to in the soul. "Every man is tempted, being drawn away and allured by his own concupiscence. Then, when concupiscence hath conceived it bringeth forth sin." [James 1: 14] Our Divine Master expressly teaches: "that it is out of the heart of man that originate, and proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies, which defile with sin the soul of man." [Mt. 15: 19] The organs, senses and members of the body are only the instruments used by the soul in her operations and external deeds.

Hence, the external action, as theft, murder, adultery, blasphemy is not the cause, but it is the consequence and the effect of the internal sin of the heart. In short, sin is committed with the mind, and with the will. Every sin is an internal rebellion of the soul against God's eternal law. Now the brain is the organ of human intelligence and will. The head is the workshop of the mind. The brain is the laboratory of the soul. This head, this human brain deserved therefore a special punishment. Behold here the other cause of our Savior's Crown of Thorns. Like a wise and skillful physician, He applied the remedy to the seat of the complaint, to the very root of the evil. Having become our Redeemer, He applied to His innocent, most holy and adorable Head, the painful Crown of Thorns as a full atonement, and most effective cure for our sins. Moreover, man fell off from God, through pride. "The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God . . . For pride is the beginning of all sins." [Eccli. 10: 14]

Pride being the origin of every sin, it was necessary that humility should become the general remedy of all evil. Now, we have seen in the previous chapter, what profound humility our Divine Lord practiced at His crowning of thorns. Thus the Crown of Thorns on the Head of our Lord, becomes the general remedy of sin. May the contemplation of this crown enlighten the mind of men, to understand the malice of sin and especially the internal sins of thought and affection.

5. Many persons make little account of internal sins. But besides the fact, that all sins are essentially committed by the mind, and will of men, we should, moreover, observe that the greater number of our sins are by their nature accomplished in the soul. All bad thoughts, and sinful affections belong to this category. The Holy Ghost says: "Perverse thoughts separate from God." [Wis. 1: 3] In fact evil thoughts and sinful affections by their nature, corrupt more immediately the heart, and defile the soul more directly than bad external actions. For, as we have observed, the malice of sin is derived from the knowledge that the mind has of the evil, and from the consenting of the will to it. All this mischief is perpetrated in the sacred cabinet of the soul.

We should, moreover, observe, that for the accomplishment of exterior actions many external circumstances of time, place, persons, and means are required, which are not necessary for the commission of internal sins. Again sinful external acts naturally, and often bring upon the sinner temporal losses, disgrace, infamy and many other human and physical punishment, to which internal sins cannot be subject. Hence both reason and experience force us to conclude that internal sins are without comparison more frequently committed, than exterior evil actions. We cannot venture to form any calculation, but the knowledge of human nature induces us to fear that thousands of internal sins are committed before one external crime is perpetrated. But what idea shall we be able to form of the awful amount of interior sins committed, when so many exterior sinful actions are witnessed in human society?
Reflect, now, that all these sins were fully known to our Divine Savior. He knew all past, present and future sins of mankind. He saw them all committed in the soul, through the understanding and will. He observed the vast majority of sins accomplished in the mind. To offer to His Eternal Father an adequate satisfaction for them our merciful Savior consented to bear the painful and ignominious Crown of Thorns. "The Crown of Thorns, Theophilatus says, is the figure of our sins which Jesus Christ abolished by His Divinity, represented by His Head." [Com. in St. Matt. 27: 29]

6. Reflect then, Christian reader, that our Divine Savior is crowned with sharp thorns, to punish on His own Head all your sinful deeds, but more especially the wicked thoughts, by which you have offended God, and have defiled His Divine image impressed upon your soul. Numerous thorns pierce, and torture His Divine Head, because we have harbored in our mind many bad thoughts of different kinds. Our thoughts against faith and against hope, our thoughts of presumption, or despair, impious and blasphemous thoughts against God, have produced the longest and sharpest thorns that torment the most holy Head of our Divine Savior. Our habitual dissipation of mind, our forgetfulness of God's holy presence, our voluntary distractions in prayer, are the reeds with which, like His cruel executioners, we strike and more deeply press His thorny crown. Uncharitable thoughts against our neighbors, rash judgment, envy and jealousy against our fellow Christians, are the cruel thorns that torture our Savior's Head. Those frequent thoughts of pride, ambition, vain-glory; that hypocrisy, that habitual disposition to over reach, and deceive our fellow men, so common in human society at the present time, those desires of revenge, sensuality and lust, have produced that terrible thorny bush from which the Crown of Thorns has been formed, that pricks and torment the Head of the incarnate Son of God.

Whilst, Christian reader, you are considering the sufferings of your Savior crowned with thorns, enter into your heart and examine therein what are the evil thoughts that more frequently occupy your mind. Conceive a sincere sorrow for them. Ask with profound humility your Savior's pardon; and firmly resolve for the future to watch over your heart, and promptly to banish from your mind every imagination or thought that may be displeasing to God, and calculated to increase the sufferings of our loving Redeemer, crowned with thorns as the King of Sorrows. It is only in this practical way that we can render our spiritual reading, or our meditation on the Passion of our dear Lord, pleasing to His Sacred Heart, and profitable to our souls.

PART TWO

"We see Jesus . . . For the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." [Heb. 2: 19]

1. A crown is an object of human ambition.

The reason may be because a crown, by its very nature and form represents the idea of perfection and of endless duration, having neither beginning nor end. Moreover a crown is always associated with the idea of honor, dignity, power and glory. Several crowns have been invented in different nations for the encouragement and reward for brave deeds and glorious achievements. The Pagan Romans, however, surpassed every other nation in inventing, and, in awarding these honorable distinctions. Different writers mention seven as the principal crowns bestowed upon deserving persons as a reward for their meritorious deeds.

The first and most illustrious was the Triumphal Crown. This was a golden crown placed on the head of the Emperor, or of some very distinguished general of the army, when he was received in triumph in the city of Rome, after having obtained some great victory over the enemies of the country.

The second was the Crown of Deliverance awarded to a general, or officer who delivered a city, or fortress from a siege by forcing the enemy to withdraw from it. This was a golden crown with a besieged city engraved on its front.

The third was the Mural Crown which was given by the emperor to any officer, or soldier, who was the first to scale the wall of a city or fortress of an enemy during an assault made upon it. This was another golden crown with a walled city or fortress being assaulted and scaled, engraven on it.

The fourth was the Camp Crown awarded to the soldier who was first to enter the enemy's entrenched camp during: a battle. This crown was also made of gold and had a military encampment engraven on it.

The fifth was the Naval Crown made of gold having a ship engraven upon it. This crown was given to the sailor who during a naval engagement was the first to board an enemy's ship.

The sixth was the Civic Crown. It was formed of small boughs of holm and oak trees, carefully entwined in a garland, with which was publicly crowned any person who had saved the life of a citizen.

The seventh was the Poetic Crown formed of laurel leaves, and awarded to poetic genius.

2. These crowns were highly esteemed by the ancient Romans. No man upon earth deserved all these crowns more than our Divine Savior.

But as He came to redeem man from the curse of sin, and thorns being the most expressive figure thereof, so He selected for Himself a Crown of Thorns. By this choice, our Lord wished to announce to us, that He came to remove from earth the malediction pronounced against it by God on account of the prevarication of our first parents, Adam and Eve. These are the sentiments of the great and glorious Martyr, St. Cyprian, the eloquent Bishop of Carthage in northern Africa. In his sermon on the Passion and Cross of our Lord, St. Cyprian says: "In order that you may understand the deep mystery of the Crown of Thorns, you should know that our Savior not only came to take away sin from the world, but also to remove the curse from the earth which God pronounced against it in punishment of the sin of our first parents when He said: "Cursed is the earth in thy work . . . Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. Hence, Jesus our Lord, is crowned with thorns to the end that this first sentence of condemnation may be removed . . .Propterea ergo spinis coronatur Jesus, ut prima ilia condemnationis sententia solvetur." [St. Cypr. Serm. de Pass and Cruce Domini] As this first sentence of condemnation was pronounced by God against the first man, who was the head and representative of mankind; so our Divine Redeemer as the Head of the Church, and the first of the elect wished to have His adorable Head crowned with thorns, to teach us that by so doing He, as God, removed the curse which had been pronounced against us. For the Head of Jesus represents His Divinity. "Corona ex spinis peccata sunt; quae Christus sua neitate consumit. Per caput enim Deitas praesignatur." [Theophil. in Matt. 27: 29]

3. Jesus is crowned as a victim.

It was a general custom among Jews and Gentiles to crown the victims intended for sacrifice. This crown laid on the head of the victim was a public profession of profound respect for him to whom the sacrifice was offered. Sacrifice strictly speaking being, by its very nature offered to God alone, hence, to Him should always be offered the most perfect, the most worthy and select victims. Now a crown was placed on the head of the animal to declare it to be the best victim found for the occasion.

We have a remarkable illustration of this in the Acts of the Apostles. St. Paul and St. Barnabas being in the city of Lystria in Lycaonia, miraculously cured in an instant a poor man who had been born lame, and never could walk. When the multitude had seen this prodigy they all lifted up their voice saying: "The gods in the likeness of men are come down to us . . ." Then the priest of Jupiter, bringing oxen and garlands would have offered sacrifice in honor of the two Apostles, had he not been strongly rebuked for it by St. Paul. [Acts. 14: 12] Now Jesus our Lord was truly the most worthy, indeed He was the only worthy victim fit to be offered to the supreme majesty of God. He was to be offered to God for the four principal objects for which victims are immolated, namely in recognition of the supreme dominion of God over all creatures; as the most perfect act of adoration of His Divine majesty; as the most complete act of atonement for sin; and lastly, as the most powerful and effective prayer to obtain every grace and blessing from Almighty God for time and eternity.

Moreover, in the person of our Savior sacrificed on the Altar of the Cross on Mount Calvary, all the victims and sacrifices of the old Testament were contained in a most eminent degree of perfection. "For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh; how much more shall the Blood of Christ, Who, through the Holy Ghost, offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? And therefore He is the mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His Death for the redemption of those transgressions, which were under the former Testament, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." [Heb 9: 13] Surely this great, this glorious, this Divine Victim of the Cross deserved to be crowned before sacrifice. Behold here another cause of the Crown of Thorns.

5. Jesus is crowned as our model.

We have seen above that our Divine Lord has been crowned with thorns in order to atone for our sins, and thus satisfy Divine justice. The holy and learned Pope, Innocent III, concludes from this fact our individual duty of doing penance. The Crown of Thorns is intended, he says, to teach us that we should surround our head, or rather our mind with deep sentiments of sorrow and penance for our sins according to the words of the Royal Psalmist who says: "I am turned in my anguish whilst the thorn is fastened. I have acknowledged my sins to thee." [Ps. 31: 4] By these words: "I am turned in my anguish whilst the thorn is fastened," may be expressed the intensity of the Royal Prophet's sufferings, who could not enjoy any rest; but they may also signify the salutary effect produced in his soul by these intense pains which become the happy cause of his perfect conversion and turning to God. Let us imitate his good example.

Sin being committed by the understanding and will, our conversion should begin from a full understanding of the malice of sin, passing then to sorrow of heart, and to the detestation of sin by the will. All this we shall learn and accomplish, if we meditate deeply on the mystery of the Crown of Thorns.

Moreover, from our thorn-crowned Savior, we should learn the duty of penance, because, as St. Bernard says, we should be ashamed to be delicate members of Jesus Christ crowned with thorns. Thorns and thistles represent the sorrows, trials and sufferings of this life. Let us learn from our Divine model to bear them with perfect patience and full resignation to the will of God. "Not my will, but thine be done." The holy Martyr St. Agapitus having red hot coals put upon his bare head exclaimed with joy: "I can cheerfully bear to have my head burned with fire, which will be crowned in Heaven with glory. These burning coals will be changed into precious stones to adorn and enrich my crown. Oh! how glorious that crown will be for my head tormented for love of Christ." An habitual dislike for suffering, and a constant yearning for the amusements and pleasures of this world, are essentially opposed to the spirit of Jesus Christ, the King of Sorrows. How can loving and faithful subjects crown themselves with flowers, when they behold their King crowned with thorns on account of their sins? Saint Clement of Alexandria says: "It is contrary to reason and to common sense for a Christian who has heard the history of the Crown of Thorns of our Lord, to wish himself crowned with flowers. This is a mockery and an insult to our thorn-crowned King." [Lib. 2 Poer,. Chap. 8]

The famous ecclesiastical historian, Baronius relates that about the year 167, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, on a certain occasion of general rejoicing, commanded all his soldiers to wear a crown of laurel leaves in sign of joy. Observing however that one of them had no crown, he asked the cause of it. The brave soldier calmly and respectfully answered: "Sire, it is not proper for a Christian to wear during this present life a crown of pleasure." Worldlings may wish to be crowned with roses, but they renounce thereby the crown of eternal glory. Those who wish to be crowned with Jesus in Heaven, must be willing to share His Crown of Thorns upon earth. The pious king of Jerusalem, Godfred de Bouillon, constantly refused to wear a crown of gold in that city wherein our Lord, the King of Kings, was crowned with thorns.

6. Jesus is crowned as our King.

Jesus Christ, being the incarnate Son of God is consequently by creation, preservation, and redemption, the Lord, Master and King of the Universe. But, here, we wish here to consider Him as our King in relation only to His Crown of Thorns. Through His Passion and Death our Savior has conquered sin, death and Hell.
First. He wished to be crowned with thorns and thistles, both being the emblem and the punishment of sin. Our Lord, through His thorny crown, shows to all the world that He has removed sin from mankind, and the curse of God from the Earth. Through the punctures of the Crown of Thorns, our crucified Lord has removed from the penitent sinner the sting of conscience, and the pang and danger of despair.

Moreover as the Crown of Thorns caused copious streams of Blood to flow from our Savior's Head down on the inferior members of His suffering body, so, through this sacred crown He obtained for all His elect, who are the mystical members of His Body the Church, all the graces, blessings, and gifts of God. As sinners we were thorny, noxious and barren trees destined to be cut down to the ground, and doomed to eternal fire. But since our Lord has been crowned with the thorns of our sins, He has removed the thorny branches, and by engrafting His prolific holiness upon us through His Sacraments, has enabled us to bear abundant fruits of virtuous actions.
Second. Through His Crown of Thorns our Heavenly King has conquered death. By removing sin our Savior has taken away its terrible sting from death. "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy; victory? O death where is thy sting? Now the sting of death is sin. But thanks be to God Who hath given the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." [1 Cor. 15: 55] Our Lord, then having obtained the victory over sin and death, deserved to receive a crown. The crown which He was pleased to choose was that of thorns.

Reflecting on this glorious victory the servants of God rejoiced at the hour of death. Gerard, the pious brother of St. Bernard, feeling that he was dying, intoned aloud with a cheerful voice the Psalm, Laudate Dominun. "Praise ye the Lord from the Heavens; praise Him in the high places, Praise ye Him all His Angels." [Ps. 148: 1] St. Bernard says: "I was called to witness this prodigy. I saw this man exulting in death, and defying its terrors.'

In his last agony the seraphic Patriarch, St. Francis, was singing sacred hymns and psalms, together with His religious. Being somewhat chided for this by Brother Elias, the dying Saint mildly answered: "Dear brother, I cannot help doing this, knowing that I shall soon be with God."

Blessed Reginald, a Dominican friar, being near death, was exhorted by his religious brethren to prepare himself for his last combat by receiving the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. "I desire, my dear fathers," he said, "to receive all the Sacraments of the Church, because through them all the merits of our Savior's Passion are applied to our soul, and because the grace that we have received through them is by them increased. However, I have not the least fear of death; on the contrary, I am expecting it with great joy. Christ our Lord has overcome death and has taken away from it its sting. Through the Crown of Thorns He has blunted the sting of death. Death, my dearest brothers, is life for those for whom the passage to Heaven is opened through the sacred side of our crucified Savior. Do then, very dear fathers, in your charity, administer to me the Sacrament of Extreme Unction."

This dying servant of God having received this last Sacrament with the most lively faith and devotion, sweetly slept in the Lord.

Third. Through the Crown of Thorns Hell has been conquered. Sin and death being overcome, the devil can no longer have any power over our soul. The infernal serpent is defeated by those very thorns which he sowed upon earth, through the sins of our first parents, and the malediction that on his account God pronounced against this earth, rebounds with terrible effect upon his proud and malignant head. The Crown of Thorns, on our Savior's Head is the impenetrable hedge with which He surrounds and protects the vineyard of His Church, and every one of His elect. Through this hedge the friends of Christ are defended, and the infernal enemy of their soul is excluded.

Fourth. Lastly the Crown of our Savior is the infallible pledge of our diadem of everlasting glory. Sin, death, Hell being overcome, Heaven is secured to us. It was in a special manner through His Crown of Thorns, that our Savior has merited, for His faithful servants the crown of immortal glory, "Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee the Crown of Life." [Apoc. 2: 10]

Dionysius the Carthusian says: Jesus has been crowned with thorns, that we may be crowned in Heaven with a crown of precious stones. "Therefore they shall receive a kingdom of glory and a crown of beauty at the hand of the Lord." [Wis. 5: 17]

Triumphs of Jesus Through the Crown of Thorns

The Mystery of the Crown of Thorns by A Passionist Father

Preserving Christian Publications, Inc. Albany, NY

"I saw, and beheld a white horse and He that sat on it had a bow, and a crown was given to Him; and He went forth conquering that He might conquer." [Apoc. 6: 2]
This mysterious vision was seen by St. John in the island of Patmos. The white horse signifies the innocent and holy human body assumed by the Eternal Son of God at His Incarnation. The bow with which He fights is that of truth. He goes forth fighting with humility and patience that He may conquer the pride and sensuality of the world. We have seen above that according to St. Bernard, four crowns were given to our blessed Lord. We are now considering the triumph achieved by Him through His Crown of Thorns.

Our Lord having by His enemies been accused to the Roman Governor of making Himself a king, Pilate asked Him whether He was the King of the Jews. Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. My kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from hence. Pilate from these words of our Lord logically concluded that He was a king; therefore he replied: Art Thou a king then? Jesus answered: thou sayest that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. [Jn. 18: 36] We Christians professing to be of the truth, should therefore listen to the voice of our Divine Master and study the lessons which He imparts to us.

1. The first truth our Lord teaches on this solemn occasion is that He is a King. We learn this fact from His words to Pilate: "thou sayest that I am a king" which is equivalent to saying: I am a king as thou sayest. This is an Hebraism, or a mode of affirming commonly used by the Jews, as Pilate well knows. We must observe here that in His answer to the Roman Governor our Lord claims a higher dignity and a more extensive power and dominion than that ever possessed by any Jewish king. He is interrogated by Pilate, whether He be the king of the Jews . . . He answers that He is a king implying that He is a greater monarch than a mere Jewish king could be. Jesus in fact is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. [Apoc. 19: 16] He is a great King over all the earth . . . He shall reign over the nations. [Ps. 46] Jesus will most certainly reign over the nations of the earth. But what are the laws by which He proposes to govern this vast empire? What promises does He make to men to draw them to His standard? What reward will He give to His faithful followers? His laws, His promises, His rewards are of an opposite nature to those of earthly monarchs. Human laws are in modern times chiefly directed to the promotion of material progress. Modern civil legislation seems so intent to advance the accumulation of material wealth as if this were the main end of human society. But the laws of Jesus, promulgated in the Gospel condemn riches as most dangerous to the eternal salvation of man and bless voluntary poverty, as the surest guarantee for obtaining the kingdom of Heaven. We are warned against the allurements of earthly prosperity, and strongly exhorted to make friends of the mammon of iniquity by large alms to the poor that they may receive us in the eternal tabernacles which are their legitimate inheritance; because the kingdom of Heaven is awarded to the poor in spirit. Glory is promised to the humble, power to the meek and eternal bliss to the virtuous sufferer. The promises of Jesus are principally confined to the next life. In this present life He promises to His followers the privations of poverty, the contempt of the world, the calumnies of malice the persecutions of tyranny. He invites His disciples to follow Him in the constant practice of self-denial, willingly carrying their cross to Mount Calvary, to be crucified in His company, to suffer and to die in contempt for His sake.

Our Divine Master and model gives in His Person a specimen of these humiliations and sufferings. At His installment in the hall of Pilate, His throne is a cold and hard stone, His diadem is a crown of sharp thorns. But this throne and this crown, which are the most convincing proofs of His enemies' cruelty and hardness of heart, are at the same time the fittest insignia of His dignity and power. What more solid throne than a stone can be found for the Monarch of the Universe? What better diadem than a Crown of Thorns for the King of Sorrows? By sitting upon a stone He takes actual possession of the whole earth. Being now installed, a crown is due to Him as a king. But a crown of gold would make Jesus of Nazareth appear a mortal king with a limited kingdom like other earthly monarchs whose principal strength consists in the power of their perishable riches to support their tottering dignity. A crown of flowers would designate Him as a voluptuous and self- indulgent man, the king of an effeminate race of subjects. A laurel crown would suit a victorious conqueror of nations whose sword is crimsoned with the blood of innumerable victims of His ambition. Any of these crowns would no doubt appear more honorable in the eyes of carnal men, but in reality it would be a sign of weakness, and a badge of infamy for our Divine Lord, because it would make Him appear a mere man elevated to an earthly kingdom like other monarchs of this world by material instruments and human means. A Crown of Thorns then is the most honorable for Jesus Christ. It makes Him indeed the King of Sorrows. It makes Him an object of derision and contempt for the impious, for the wicked, and the proud.

St. Bernard with the Instruments of the Passion

But in spite of them Jesus draws more numerous, more sincere and nobler courtiers round this cold stone, crimsoned with His Blood than the monarchs of the earth can ever hope to see near their thrones of gold enameled with precious stones. Jesus crowned with thorns beholds daily scores of millions of earnest worshipers who adore Him in spirit and in truth, who love and serve Him with devoted hearts. While the monarchs of the earth must have recourse to forced conscription to enroll soldiers for the defense of their drooping standards, three hundred millions of true believers are ready to shed their blood at the foot of the Cross in defense of their Faith and of the laws of Jesus Christ, their thorn-crowned King. But His glory and power is more fully manifested in Heaven, where countless millions of Angels and Saints serve, praise, love and worship Him as their Lord and God. This Crown of Thorns then, which has been pressed upon His sacred Head to afflict, humble and degrade Him, has been changed into a crown of gold, wherein holiness is engraved, a badge of honor, a work of power, delightful to the eyes of Faith for its beauty. [Eccli. 45: 13] Such are the triumphs of the Crown of Thorns. Jesus crowned with thorns is become the King of Kings and the Master of Heaven and earth.
With these sentiments of Faith in his Christian heart the truly noble Godfrey de Bouillon, having through his bravery and military skill contributed much to the recovery of Jerusalem, was declared king of the reconquered holy city and territory. But in his humility he would never consent to wear a crown of gold, because as he said, "Jesus our Lord had worn in Jerusalem a Crown of Thorns."

2. In the second place Our Lord said to Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world. These words should not be distorted in favor of the modern sacrilegious robberies of the States and other property of the Church in many parts of the world. Jesus did not say that His kingdom was not upon earth. Because as we have seen, He is the King of Kings, and surely this means that He is the sovereign Lord, and King of all earthly monarchs. He is the great King over all the Earth. He became man to save and govern all men. He makes us pray daily that His kingdom may be established upon the whole earth, and that He may reign over all nations. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." When our Lord said to Pilate: My kingdom is not of this world, He intended to teach men that the origin of His supreme power and dignity is not from the earth but from Heaven, not from men, but immediately from God. He wished us to understand that the means and instruments which He uses for the establishment, extension and perpetuation of His kingdom, are not material and human, like those of earthly potentates, but of a very different nature. He has omnipotence as an essential attribute of His Divinity. Hence He has no need of powerful armies with numerous squadrons of trained cavalry, supported by large parks of modem artillery. He builds no navy because He has no need of it. The Bark of Peter is sufficient for Him. All these engines of war serve only to demonstrate the utter weakness of earthly governments that are obliged to use them to keep their discontented subjects in forced obedience to their laws, and to repel the invasions of external foes. Jesus is the God of truth and recruits His subjects through the maxims of the Gospel. He is the Prince of Peace, and draws His followers through the charms of Christian charity. No man is forced into His service against His will. In the kingdom of Christ every person is free. In His army all are volunteers without pay, and without any other promise of bounty, except an eternal reward, if they remain faithful to Him until death, Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee the crown of life. [Apoc. 2: 10] In the school of Jesus the wise according to the flesh are taught to become fools for His sake, and to subject the boasted light of their reason to the authority of Faith. In the company of Jesus, the ambitious and proud in high honors and dignities are humbled; and the low and humble in spirit are raised above them. The rich are taught lessons of poverty, the vigor of youth and the strength of manhood are weakened by labor and voluntary penance. All the wealth, power and success of His followers are confined to humble, fervent prayer. These are the means, and the instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ employs for the establishment, extension and perpetuation of His kingdom upon earth.

Now, what scepter could have better and more strikingly expressed the apparent weakness of these instruments, than the hollow, light and frail reed which was placed in the right hand of our Savior crowned with thorns? Yet, it is with this empty reed that He has established the great kingdom of His Church upon earth. How empty and poor, ignorant, weak and frail were the Apostles, the first instruments our Lord selected for the preaching of His Gospel! St. Paul says: See your vocation, brethren, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the wise, and the weak things of the world hath God chosen that He may confound the strong. And the mean things of the world, and the things that are not, that He might destroy the things that are. [1 Cor. 1: 26] Before St. Paul wrote these Divine truths, they had been forcibly expressed by our Redeemer and Master, through a reed in His hand in Pilate's hall. It is with instruments as frail and hollow as a reed that He has succeeded in a short period of time in establishing His kingdom in all the principal nations of the world. Wise philosophers, like Dionysius the areopagite and St. Justin, eloquent orators like Cyprian and Augustine were captivated by the folly of the Cross. The high and the noble of the earth came down from their lofty dignities and honors to the lowliness and obscurity of the Catacombs, and the wealthy embraced the poverty of the Gospel. Kings, like Clovis, and emperors like Constantine bowed their heads under the yoke of Christ, and raised His Cross over their standards and upon their imperial diadems. So long as they held their scepters of power in the name of Jesus, and wielded them for the promotion of His holy kingdom, they were always victorious, respected, and prosperous. But when the potentates of the earth abused their material power to oppress His Church, to persecute His followers, and to harass His Vicar in Rome, their scepters of gold were changed into hollow and frail reeds, which in their insane and impotent efforts broke and wounded their hands, while their thrones were shivered to pieces, and scattered as rubbish over the face of the earth. So foretold the best of prophet kings: "Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a Potter's vessel. And now, ye kings understand, and receive instruction you that judge the earth. Serve the Lord with fear . . . embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish . . . when His wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in Him." [Ps. 2: 9]

When His wrath shall be kindled in a short time. The materials for a general conflagration are ready in the universal discontent of mankind, against modern rulers and governments. These have impiously abdicated the Christian character of their mission, and direct all the energies of their waning power to Paganize their subjects. They wield their scepters with a heavy hand upon the people, overwhelming them with an unbearable burden of taxes, oppressing their bodies with military conscription, perverting their minds with the impious doctrines of godless schools, and tyrannizing; over their consciences with unjust and anti-Christian laws. They persecute the ministers of religion, interfere with the freedom of Divine worship, rob them of their churches, imprison, or exile Catholic priests and bishops, suppress religious houses and confiscate their legitimate property. An impious conspiracy has been forced "among the kings of the earth, and the princes have met together against the Lord, and against His Christ, the venerable pontiff of Rome . . ." What wonder if according to the warning of the royal Prophet, these discontented subjects say: "Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in Heaven will laugh at our tyrants, and the Lord shall deride them. Then He will speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His rage." [Ps. 2] Through His Vicar, the infallible Pope, Jesus has already spoken and His syllabus has troubled the mighty kings of the earth. Their scepters of gold, through the anger of God, have been changed in their hands of flesh into frail and hollow reeds, without any power for good. Having rejected God's sanction, their authority has lost the respect of their subjects. Deprived through their anti-Christian policy of the respect and love of mankind, they are obliged to surround their tottering thrones with millions of guns and bayonets, which, before the end of this century, by one of God's greatest prodigies, when His wrath shall be kindled in a short time, will be turned into weapons for their utter destruction, together with that of their impious counselors and abettors, the sworn enemies and malicious persecutors of God's holy Church. "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the scepter of thy power out of Sion. Rule thou in the midst of thy enemies . . . The Lord at thy right hand hath broken kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among nations: He shall fill ruins: He shall crush the heads in the land of many." [Ps. 109] Mankind will be surprised at the triumphs of Jesus crowned with thorns, when with His reed, a scepter of derision, He will, as with an iron rod, break as a potter's vessel, the power of all the tyrants of the earth. Men of all nations will then bend their knees before the throne of His majesty and glory, and worship Him in spirit and in truth saying: To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. [Tim. 1: 17] Hence, that reed, which was an instrument of derision at the end of His mortal life, will become the scepter of His greatest triumph and glory towards the end of time, which is fast approaching, in spite of the incredulity of men, and in just punishment of this incredulity . . .

The Clean Oblation: Part I: Christ's Personal Sacrifice

2007-04-05T11:45:00.000-04:00

By REV. M. D. FORREST, M.S.C.

Nihil obstat: FRANCISCUS MOYNIHAN, CENSOR DEPUTATUS.

Imprimatur: QJID. MANNIX, ARCHIEPISCOPUS MELBOURNENSIS.

Melbourni, die ij° Aprilis, 1945.

Copyright, 1945
Radio Replies Press
St. Paul 1, Minn., U. S. A.

Preface

Towards the close of his fruitful pontificate—during the year, in fact, that preceded his death—the great Pope Leo XIII, in his memorable Encyclical Mirae Garitatis, wrote these touching words: "It was towards the close of His mortal life that Christ our Lord left this memorial of His measureless love for men, this powerful means of support for the life of the world (John VI, 52). And precisely for this reason, We, being so soon to depart from this life, can wish for nothing better than that it may be granted to Us to stir up and foster in the hearts of all men the dispositions of mindful gratitude and due devotion towards this wonderful Sacrament, wherein most especially lie, as We hold, the hope and the efficient cause of salvation and of that peace which all men so anxiously seek.

This illustrious Pontiff's zeal for the spread of the glory of the Holy Eucharist was visibly blessed by God, as we see in the immediate marvelous increase of devotion towards the great Mystery of Love, an increase which continued with ever growing ardor until it burst forth, under Leo's saintly successor, into a veritable renewal of that flame which consumed the breasts of the early Christians. That devotion is still expanding, and we of the present generation glory in the fact that we are living in a Eucharistic age.

One evident sign, amongst many, of this extensive and intensive devotion is the remarkable output of Eucharistic literature that has been witnessed in recent times. Both clergy and laity are athirst for works on the Eucharist. Engaging and striking volumes have come from the pens of theologians;devotional books for the laity have been multiplied; doctrinal articles in ecclesiastical periodicals have appeared in prolific profusion. And yet no apology is needed for adding to the numerous works found nowadays on the great Gift, for this theme is inexhaustible, and besides, though the Church's doctrine is unchanged and unchangeable, it may be presented in various ways by different authors.

The Eucharistic literature that is of keenest interest to the priest is that which deals directly with the Sacrifice of the Mass. The earnest priest yearns to get an ever deeper insight into this mysterious oblation in order that he may intensify his own appreciation of, and devotion towards, the Holy Sacrifice and at the same time become more capable of expounding to the faithful this mystery of love and grace, "so far surpassing hope or thought.''

We sometimes hear priests utter, not without a semblance of justification, the complaint that, as a result of their study of the various theories put forward by theologians, they are rather bewildered and somewhat at a loss to know how they may best explain and preach to the people the Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of the Mass. Certainly none of us is desirous of evolving a new theory or of seeing an additional theory formulated. Theories there are in abundance, despite the fact that the Church has given us, with remarkable precision, a fundamental concept of the spotless Sacrifice, which every Catholic, from the greatest theologian down to the lowliest school child, receives and professes with childlike faith. As regards the various theories concerning the essence of the Mass, what we need is their simplification and unification. It is probably true that certain theologians who propound apparently conflicting theories are in reality endeavoring to express the same truth, or are at least giving expression to partial truths or to different aspects of the same truth.

The cordial reception given to the series of articles I have contributed to Emmanuel, the Official Monthly of the Priests' Eucharistic League for the U. S. A., on the Essence and Fruits of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, has led me to publish these artides in book form. It seems almost fashionable to preface a book with the statement that the author has received numerous, pressing requests from friends who have begged him to put in book form some series of articles he had written or some course of lectures he had given. I do not imply that authors do not at times receive these requests or even entreaties; but such statements in prefaces are sometimes "a trifle overdone." However, while mentioning the fact (gratifying, I admit, to the recipient of the letters) that, while the series of articles on the Essence and Fruits of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was proceeding in Emmanuel, messages of undue appreciation came from the U. S. A., Canada, Ireland, and Australia, some of which suggested or requested the publication of the articles in book form, I wish to state candidly that, even if such messages had not been received, I would nevertheless publish this work. And if anyone asked me if I thought the book would be useful, I would reply with Father Dominico Palmieri, S.J., that, if I did not think it would be useful, I would not publish it.

I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to two successive editors of Emmanuel, Rev. Fathers J. Graham, S.S.S. and J. J. O'Brien, S.S.S., for so cordially inviting me to contribute the respective articles and for expressing repeatedly such encouragement and appreciation. I desire to thank also a correspondent who wrote from China to the former editor and who paid a high, though undeservedly high, tribute to the articles, expressing the earnest wish that they should be published in book form and asking to be informed when that should take place. To that devoted Maryknoll Missionary, whose gracious letter the Editor kindly sent on to me, I now tender my best thanks and assure him that I shall also gratefully remember himself and his confreres, and all their missionary activities, as I immolate the Lamb of God.

Although the Eucharist is eminently Mysterium Fidei, yet it seems to the present writer that an intelligent grasp of its sacrificial nature is within the power of every adult mind enlightened by faith and aided by grace, and that the traditional teaching of the Church can be formulated in a fairly simple thesis,

I have done my best to set forth in this work the nature and effects of our daily Sacrifice, and to do so as intelligibly as I could. Whether or not I have succeeded, iudicent peritiores. I know, from letters received, that many priests will heartily endorse the theses advanced in this volume; but I am equally sure that there will be some who will dissent, at least on a few points. But, whether we agree on all that this work contains or disagree regarding some matters, let us all remember (and practice) the golden adage: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

M. D. FORREST, M.S.C. Sacred Heart Monastery, Croydon, Victoria, Australia,
Feast of the Annunciation, 1945.

The Meaning of Sacrifice

In treating of the Eucharistic Sacrifice it will be well, first of all, to give a clear outline of the nature of sacrifice. Some writers seem to be of opinion that this is not the most desirable procedure, and that it is preferable to plunge at once "in medias res" concerning Calvary and the Mass. But do not we priests, in our exposition of the doctrine of the Church's central act of worship, experience the necessity of first giving the faithful a notion of sacrifice in general? It seems rather strange to expect them to grasp the meaning of the Sacrifice of the Mass before they gain a clear concept of sacrifice. A professor of Theology sees the same need in delivering his lectures to students. And the theologian himself finds it more satisfactory in his own speculations regarding the adorable Sacrifice to clarify, in the first place, his idea of sacrifice. A great deal of confusion regarding the Eucharistic Sacrifice results, as we shall see, from peculiar notions, expressed or implied, concerning the essential elements of sacrifice.

The word sacrifice is not a univocal, but an analagous term. It may mean (1) man's inward act of adoration of God or consecration to God, (2) any good work the performance of which is intended to bring us into union with God, (3) an act of worship of God, (4) a personal, voluntary act of privation, suffering, or oblation, especially the laying down of one's life, (5) a special act of public worship. I use the word public, although we find that external seems to suffice in the definition of some of the first sacrifices offered by man.

It is of sacrifice understood in the fifth sense that we are treating at present, and it is of this kind of sacrifice that St. Augustine gave the definition that has become traditional in the Church: "Every visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is, a sacred sign, of invisible sacrifice."

Theologians are wont to discuss the method whereby we should arrive at a definition of sacrifice. While some favor the a priori and others the a posteriori method, others again combine both methods, which seems to be the most reasonable procedure. Certainly the idea of sacrifice is natural to man, and people of practically all nations or races have at all times worshiped by sacrifice, though many of them have shown greatly distorted notions of such worship. But God has also revealed the notion of sacrifice and has positively instituted sacrifices.

We must, then, beware of giving a priori a complete definition of sacrifice and then trying to make the various sacrifices instituted by God fit in with our definition. Rather should we start with what we consider a primary concept of sacrifice and then complete or clarify that concept from the study of history and above all from the consideration of what we know by revelation to be true sacrifices.

Had the Eucharistic Sacrifice not been instituted, we should have remained with an incomplete idea of sacrifice. Certainly we should not have guessed the possibility of a living victim being sacrificed "in a borrowed or foreign form" (in specie aliena). Had the mystery of the Incarnation not been revealed, we might have defined person as a complete human nature, and, had the mystery of transubstantiation never been wrought, we might not have guessed that there are accidents which are really distinct from the substance which supports them.

Hence I do not agree with the scholarly Lepin, who has written so beautifully of the Mass, when he expresses surprise that Billot, in defining sacrifice, adds one phrase because he "considers in advance the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and is moved by it alone."

The idea of a gift underlies all sacrifice, or is bound up with it. Everyone, even a child, knows what a gift is. The greatest savages easily perceive the meaning of gifts and bestow them accordingly. Now, a gift may be offered or given for various reasons. We might give a present or gift to some high dignitary in order to honor him—to express our appreciation of his dignity or office and to show that we duly respect and revere him. Or we might send a gift to someone in order to show our gratitude for some favor received from him. We might bestow a gift also to placate or appease one whom we have offended—to express thereby our apology for the insult we inflicted on him, to make reparation or satisfaction for it, and to manifest our desire for his pardon. Again, we might give a present to someone with influence in order to procure from him a favor we desired.

Thus a gift may be given (1) to honor a person in high office, (2) to show our thankfulness to a benefactor, (3) to express apology or sorrow for an offense and seek reconciliation, (4) to obtain favors we desire for ourselves or others.

But we generally understand a gift as an expression of love. And, indeed, in regard to God, to whom the very four acts I have mentioned are due, and which we term adoration, thanksgiving, propitiation, and petition, love includes those four acts. God is infinite goodness, and so He is worthy of our supreme or highest love. And love for God prompts us to offer Him those four acts which constitute the worship prescribed by right reason. It is easier to explain sacrifice by considering God's goodness as the object of our love, though I do not imply that these acts of worship may not be offered before one has reached perfect love of God.

In order to express outwardly and in a public manner that we are giving this worship to God, we have recourse to sacrifice. A gift is chosen and is publicly offered to God as a sign or symbol of our inward dispositions—our inner acts of adoration or thanksgiving or atonement or petition, or of all four acts. In fact, sacrifice may be described as the public worship of God expressed in sign or symbol. There is a theological adage that has been "canonized" by long usage: "Sacrificium est in genere signi" ("Sacrifice belongs to the category or class of signs or symbols"). This simple sentence is really the key to the right understanding of sacrifice.

Ordinarily we pray to God by word, or even thought. But we may pray to Him also by sign. Thus, instead of saying, "My God, I adore Thee," we may simply bow profoundly or kneel in silence. Instead of saying, "My Jesus, I am sorry for displeasing Thee," we may silently kiss the crucifix.

Our public prayers (those said in the name of the community)—what may be termed social prayers—are expressed in certain words which are said aloud by a group of persons or by one person praying in their name.

But sacrifice is more than such public or social prayer. It is a public action whereby a gift is officially, or in the name of the community or society, offered to God to express the worship of the entire community. Sacrifice might be described also as the public offering of a gift of love to the Deity. So far, however, I have but described sacrifice; I have not yet defined it.

Since sacrifice is an act of public worship—the greatest expression, in fact of public worship (I am not concerned with what might be termed private sacrifices in the early history of mankind)—there must be someone elected or appointed or designated to act in this matter in the name of the people. This person is called a priest. Besides, there must be a gift— something precious or a sign of something precious—to be offered to God. The most precious thing we possess is our own life, and so some object that represents in some way human life, or is closely associated with it, has always been chosen to be offered to God in sacrifice. Besides the priest and the gift, there must be an altar. By this we generally understand something constructed (and, as a rule, elegantly or exquisitely constructed), on which the gift is publicly laid by the priest in the name of the people. The altar is considered to represent the Deity, who receives the gift.

When the priest who makes the offering in the name of the people puts the gift on the altar with a certain ceremony or holy action, the object offered passes at once from the ownership of the people into the possession of God and thereby becomes sacred or consecrated. In fact, the verb sacrifice literally means make sacred (sacrum facere), and the noun signifies the action whereby a thing is rendered sacred, or the thing itself that is made sacred by such action.

All things, of course, belong to God, whether or not we choose to offer anything to Him. But, in His goodness, He condescends to accept from us His own gifts as if they were really ours to give Him, just as a fond parent lovingly accepts a present from a child although the pocket money which purchased the gift really came from the parent's purse.

The history of sacrifice, whether amongst the Jewish people or amongst pagans, tells us that mankind has been accustomed to offer the Deity two kinds of gifts, always, however, connected in some way with human life. The inanimate gifts offered were corn, oil, flour, bread, wine, first fruits of the harvest, etc. The animate (living) gifts were sheep, lambs, calves, heifers, etc. The gift offered symbolized human life, and by publicly and officially offering such gifts the people wished to express in the language of sign or symbol that they thereby dedicated, or rather consecrated, or gave back to God their own life, which they had received from Him.

When a living gift was sacrificed, the animal, called a victim, was generally slain. Then its blood, which especially or particularly represented the life of the animal, was poured out on the altar, or at the foot of the altar, by the priest, and the body of the animal was roasted or even burnt in order to express, as it were, that the people were offering God a repast. Often, having made the offering of the blood and the roasted animal, the priest and the people, considering themselves now the friends of God through the sacrifice made with the right dispositions, partook of the meat as if at a heavenly festival to which God had invited His friends. We might term this ceremony Communion with God and with one another in a holy fellowship.

Writing of the slaying of animals as victims, the Angelic Doctor says: "Animals offered in sacrifice were slain, because they are killed when used by men for the purpose of food for which God has given them to man; and therefore also they were burnt because they are cooked by fire in order to be rendered fit for human use." (la Ilae, qu. 102, art. 3, ad 8.)

Another reason why animals were slain was that the people, recognizing themselves as sinners, wished to show that they merited death for their offenses and also to symbolize the death or destruction of their sins by sincere repentance. Since they could not lawfully put themselves to death, they killed an animal in their stead as an expression of their willingness to sacrifice their own lives in expiation of their sins, for which they now manifested true contrition and the purpose of amendment or destruction of sin in their lives. They transferred, as it were, their own sins to the animal, or, rather, they inflicted on the animal, a vicarious victim, the punishment which they had incurred by their transgressions, and which they were willing to undergo with "a contrite and humble heart"

"Likewise also, by the slaying of animals," writes St. Thomas, "the destruction of sins was signified, and the fact that men deserved to be put to death for their sins, as if those animals were slain in their own stead to signify the expiation of sins." (Loc. cit., ad 5.)

But, although animals were killed as victims for sin, the idea of a gift to God remained in the sin-offering. In other words, the people offered God a blood-stained gift. This may be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose that a child has seriously offended his father and, realizing the parent's grief and his own baseness, resolves, as far as lies in his power, to make amends. He procures the loveliest gift he can and proceeds to present it to his father. But, before reaching his destination, he is overcome by sorrow and sheds copious tears which fall upon and even stain the beautiful gift. Nevertheless, he still makes the offering, though the present is now completely marred by tear stains. Will the gift be any the less acceptable to the father for that reason? On the contrary, it will be but enhanced in the loving father's sight. Likewise, though the blood of a slaughtered animal disfigures the gift, the offering is enhanced in God's sight by the sincere repentance which that blood symbolizes.

I shall now sum up what has been written so far regarding sacrifice:

1. We may pray not only by words, but also by signs, just as we may express our thoughts and feelings by signs as well as by words.

2. A gift is a sign or token of love, and so we may express our love for God by offering Him a gift.

3. Worship of God comprises four acts: adoration, thanksgiving, satisfaction (or atonement), and petition. Love of God especially or most effectively, though not solely, prompts us to offer this worship.

4. The highest act of public worship is sacrifice.

5. Sacrifice may be described as an offering made to God by a priest, in the name of the people, of a gift which represents in some way human life.

6. The outward offering of this visible gift signifies the inward offering or consecration of human life to God—the giving to God of "our whole heart."

For a sacrifice three things are required: a gift, an altar, and a priest.

7. The Jewish people, taught by God Himself, offered both inanimate and animate gifts. Living gifts (e.g., animals) were generally slain and their blood poured out at the altar to express (a) the gift or consecration of the people's lives to God, and (b) repentance for sin and the wish to expiate it.

Is Destruction Essential to Sacrifice?

I have no intention of burdening the reader with numerous quotations, though I shall find it necessary, or at least useful, to cite various authors in the course of this work.

Franzelin thus defines sacrifice: "Sacrifice is the offering made to God of a sensible object by its real or equivalent destruction, lawfully instituted to acknowledge God's supreme dominion and at the same time, for our fallen state, to profess the divine justice and to expiate man's guilt." For this eminent theologian and his followers destruction is essential to sacrifice. And he gives the following reason for the destruction of the victim: "In relation to God, what we may term its theological significance, by the destruction of the thing there is the objective expression of sovereign dominion over all things that they may be or not be . . . ; in relation to man, what can be called its moral signification, there is the external expression of internal acknowledgment and submission under this dominion of God with the disposition to sacrifice his life and himself entirely to God." (De SSma. Euch., Pars II, Th. II.)

Other theologians, while not insisting on destruction, require some intrinsic change or modification of the thing offered. We find this idea in the definitions of sacrifice given by Perrone (de Euch., p. 245) and Pesch (Prael. Dog., T. VI, 835). Quite a number of authors are of this opinion.

Others again are perfectly satisfied with the teaching of Maldonatus that "sacrifice is the sensible offering of a sensible object, made to God alone by a lawful minister, by some mystical rite, for the acknowledgment of human weakness and nature and the profession of divine majesty" (Ed. Lute-tiae 1677, col. 217).

The Angelic Doctor writes: "Sacrifices are properly so called when something is done in regard to the things offered to God (quando circa res Deo oblatas aliquid fit), as when animals were killed and burned, when bread is broken and eaten and blessed" (Ha Ilae, qu. 85, art. 3, ad 3). From this passage it is by no means clear that St. Thomas requires destruction; all he insists on is that "something be done towards or regarding (circa) the object offered to God. Nor is it clear from the following question of the Summa (qu. 86, art. 1) that he supports the theory that the thing offered in sacrifice must be destroyed, for he simply states here that for sacrifice (1) something must be offered for divine worship, (2) it must thereby become "something sacred." Some may maintain that, because he uses the word consumendum, the Angelic Doctor requires destruction, but this is by no means evident. The interpretation could well be that by the sacrificial offering of a profane thing to God that thing thereby becomes sacred; a mere ceremonial offering (accompanied by "mystic consecration") could suffice. The expression, "mystic consecration," as will be seen presently, is not of my invention—it was used by Fathers and theologians in the Council of Trent, For my clerical readers I quote the "ipsissima verba" of St. Thomas: "Si aliquid exhibeatur in cultum divinum, quasi in aliquod sacrum, quod inde fieri debeat, consumendum, et oblatio est et sacrificium." It is surely difficult to see how something sacred would result from the object offered if the latter were destroyed I

In treating of this question of destruction, Father de la Taille uses guarded language: "Conclude now, therefore, on which side that controversy of doctors is to be settled: Of the things offered is destruction as such (formal or equivalent) required to constitute a true sacrifice? Where the primary and prevailing end is only latreutic, destruction does not seem to be required. . . . Where, however, the chief end is propitiatory, some destruction or slaying of the victim seems more fitting." (MF, p. 10.) Hence it is surprising to find this scholarly author later on, in the same work (Eluci-datio XXIV), inveighing against certain theologians because he can find in their theories on the Mass no real destruction of the victim!

It is only in comparatively recent centuries that we find theologians so insistent on destruction as an essential element in sacrifice. Rather, I should say, a certain number of theologians, or a certain class, who seem to have "the bump of destruction" highly developed. Theologians of former centuries, while realizing that in many sacrifices the victim was slain, do not require destruction as an essential note in sacrifice as such.

Besides, even in those sacrifices in which destruction of the victim was found, what was the reason of this action? Was it really for the purpose of destroying? No, God finds no pleasure in the destruction of his gifts. The animal offered in sacrifice was slain in order that its blood, symbolizing its life, might be poured out at the altar as a symbol of the consecration to God of the life of those who offered the sacrifice. Animals were slain also, as has been shown above, in order to offer God a repast, as it were.

Rightly does Rev. Wilh. Goetzmann, writing in the American Ecclesiastical Review (April, 1906, p. 390), say: "Sacrifice is not an act of destruction. The old Jewish sacrifices by no means implied this. God, who instituted and ordained these sacrifices, finds no delight in destruction; what He demands and wishes is surrender and perfect consecration to Himself. . . . The slaying of the victim was not intended to signify the taking away of life, but rather the surrender of life to God."

I have shown above that the slaying of a victim in sin-offerings really had a double signification: the explanation just given by Goetzmann is the chief explanation; destruction of sin and the willingness to sacrifice one's own life in expiation were also signified. In a word, a blood-stained gift was offered to God. In other sacrifices (latreutic, eucharistic, and impetratory) it is still clearer that destruction as such was not intended. Regarding this matter, Rev. W. Moran, D.D., has aptly written in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record: "The story of Abel (represented as a sinless servant of God) suggests that, apart from the propitiatory aspect of sacrifice, animals from the flock would have been deemed suitable sacrificial gifts to be offered to God; and that such animals would have been immolated even is purely latreutic sacrifices. Immolation would not have been necessary by way of sin-punishment in such sacrifices, but it would have been necessary, or at least convenient, for another reason. The life was the most important element in the victim, and the life was in the blood (Lev. XVII, 4). What more graphic way of presenting the gift to God than by applying its blood to the altar, the seat of Divinity?" (Dec, 1931 , p. 572).

The idea of gift even in a propitiatory sacrifice is expressed thus by St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "If a king exiled some men who had offended him, and then the relatives of these exiles made a crown and offered it to the king on behalf of their friends suffering punishment, would he not graciously remit their punishment?" (Vide Hurter, III, p. 384).

It seems really superfluous to labor this point further. Have we not Christ's own teaching, at least clearly implied, that sacrifice does not consist in destruction as such, but rather in the offering of a gift to God: "If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there remember that thy brother hath anything against thee, leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift" (St. Matt. V, 23 & 24).

Provided that some ceremonial or mystical or symbolical operation be performed by the priest to show that the object passes from our possession into the hands of God (so that it no longer belongs to us, but has become "something sacred," as St. Thomas says), or, in the case of propitiatory sacrifice, provided that some such ceremony also expresses pragmatically that we are sinners and deserve punishment from God, whose pardon we now implore, such sacerdotal operation is sufficient for sacrifice. Of course, in offering living gifts (animals) in their natural condition (in specie propria), the obvious way to express the handing over of such gifts to God is first to slay them, though Suarez contemplates a true sacrifice of an animal without the need of killing it. In the case of inanimate objects it is easy to see how they could be sacrificed without any destruction. The loaves- of proposition (the "show breads"), which were not destroyed, are spoken of in Scripture as sacrifices (Lev. XXIV, 9). When a victim* is offered in a foreign or borrowed form (in specie aliena), the symbolic or mystical action whereby the handing over of the life of the victim to God is pragmatically expressed certainly calls for no destruction whatever.

"The formula so much in vogue," wrote His Grace, Most Rev. Dr. Sheehan, formerly Coadjutor-Archbishop of Sydney, " 'no destruction, no sacrifice,' which seems to have found its way even into our elementary books, is not supported by St. Thomas, and is rejected by Suarez." Again, writing of propitiatory sacrifices, His Grace asks: "Bearing in mind that sacrifice is a sign, would not a figurative destruction suffice? Suppose that in a pagan sacrifice the priest sprinkles the offerings of food and drink with clay or covers them with a black veil to signify death, would not this sufficiently indicate that the worshipers, who are represented by the gifts on the altar, confess their sinful state, and acknowledge the debt of punishment which they owe to Divine Justice? And could the symbolism be described as ineffective or deficient, if, at a further stage in the ceremony, and as a sign of reconciliation, the offerings were freed from their somber adjuncts and given to those present as a sacred banquet?" {Australasian Catholic Record, Jan., 1925, p. 81.)

If we bear in mind the teaching of St. Augustine quoted on page 1, viz., that visible sacrifice is the sign or symbol of invisible sacrifice, and if we keep in our thoughts the canonized statement that sacrifice is essentially symbolical, we shall easily rid ourselves of any propensity towards this excessive destruc-tionism that has crept into theological works of the past few centuries. We shall see later, when considering the Eucharis-tic Sacrifice, that the early Fathers and theologians never dreamt of looking for either real or equivalent destruction or intrinsic change as a constituent element of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

In the congregations or committees of theologians a formula of doctrine regarding the Eucharistic Sacrifice was drawn up towards the end of the second period of the Council of Trent. It was then handed to the Fathers, who suggested several changes. A revised formula or scheme was finally drafted by the congregations of prelates (or the bishop theologians). Although this formula did not become a councillor decree, for the Council soon after adjourned (and a new decree was formulated in the third period when a large number of new arrivals were present at the Council), still it is of great importance, as reflecting the mind of the theologians and Fathers of the Council. The following sentence contained their accepted definition of sacrifice: "Since it is evident that an external object, consecrated by the mystical operation of a priest and offered to God, is a sacrifice properly so called" etc.

Hence it is quite clear that the Tridentine Fathers and theologians did not regard physical destruction as an essential note of sacrifice; in fact, that they did not require any real or equivalent destruction or any intrinsic changing of the object offered. In the third period of the Council the same notion of sacrifice prevailed as in the second period, for we find in a proposed formulary this sentence: "The words also, which priests use in offering and consecrating, declare this true, most Divine Sacrifice, for priestly blessing, consecration, and offering of external things properly constitute sacrifice." The doctrinal decree on the Mass was recast several times, and the sentence just quoted does not appear in the final draft, although I have not noticed, in any of the prolonged discussions of the Mass carried on by both Fathers and theologians, any objection raised against this definition of sacrifice. The theologians who drafted the final decree and the Fathers who all but unanimously accepted it, evidently thought that there was no need to define the nature of sacrifice. But the above definitions, formulated in the second and third periods respectively of the Council, are a very clear indication that Fathers and theologians of Trent did not regard destruction as an essential element of sacrifice as such.

The present writer would suggest as a definition of sacrifice in general a simple amplification of the Tridentine form given above, and would thus define sacrifice: The offering of a gift with priestly ceremonial whereby the external object offered is so consecrated to God as to pass beyond the lawful use of man into God's complete possession as an outward expression of man's internal consecration of himself.

But in the present work I am manifestly concerned especially with propitiatory sacrifice of an animate object. Such sacrifices were frequently offered in the Old Law; such a sacrifice par excellence was offered on Calvary; such a sacrifice is offered daily on our altars. Of this particular kind of sacrifice I would suggest the following definition: The action whereby a priest offers to God a victim in a state of immolation in order to appease and worship Him. This could be expressed more gracefully in Latin: Victimae in statu im-molationis constitutae oblatio Deo sacerdotaliter facta ad Eum modo piaculari colendum.

If the victim be offered in its natural condition—in forma propria—we may designate the oblation a physical sacrifice; if the victim be immolated in a borrowed or foreign form—-in specie aliena—the oblation may be termed a sacramental sacrifice. In each kind of sacrifice the one action may comprise both the offering and the immolation. In a physical sacrifice (such were the sacrifices offered by the Jewish people) the immolation was generally bloody, causing physical death, though, as has been remarked above, Suarez visualizes such a sacrifice without the slaying or destruction of the animal. In a sacramental sacrifice the immolation is unbloody or mystical, as will be explained during the course of the present work.

That a sacrifice may not be defective, it must be accepted by God. In supernatural religion this really means that a sacrifice is a covenant. "There is in sacrifice," writes Abbot Vonier, O, S. B., "this all-important element, which we overlook so often, the pre-arranged acceptance of God. God is willing to receive a definite homage; man will never be able to win God's favor through mere slaughterings of his precious herds; the sacrifice must be a covenanted thing between God and man." (A key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 160.) This refers only to supernatural religion, for, although in merely natural religion sacrifice, in order to be effective, would need to be accepted by God, still, since no supernatural revelation would be had in the state of pure nature, there could be no covenant; and in such a case acceptance by the Deity would be considered as signified by the laying of the gift on the altar. The altar receiving the offering would symbolize the Deity accepting the gift. But in the supernatural order, in which God has positively revealed the worship of sacrifice and explicitly designated the kind of sacrifice we are to offer Him, we are no longer free to choose other forms of sacrifice. And God's own designation of victim and priest, with the command that His people offer sacrifice accordingly, carries with this revelation the necessary implication, and even evident promise, that, if offered with the right dispositions, such sacrifice will be accepted by Him.

The Sacrifice of Redemption

Besides the elements already mentioned as the constituent or essential elements of every sacrifice, there can be, and in fact is, found in certain sacrifices an attribute or characteristic whereby a supernatural mystery is represented or imaged forth. This characteristic is termed by theologians the typical or mystical character of a sacrifice (ratio typica vel mystica sacrificii).

The sacrifices of the Old Law, especially those which were primarily propitiatory, were types or figures of the Sacrifice of Redemption. "Which is a parable of the time present; according to which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth. . . . For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb. IX & X). And the Eucharistic Sacrifice is essentially representative and commemorative (and applicative) of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The great central Sacrifice, the exemplar of all other sacrifices, in the supernatural order, is Calvary. In a word, it is the one great completely absolute Sacrifice.

The doctrine of Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice, so sublimely set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, was solemnly defined by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. Three canons expressly declare this immortal truth. The following is a translation of these canons, which I give because they are the first solemn definition of this truth which had, of course, been explicitly believed by the faithful from the beginning of the Church, but was now solemnly defined against heretics.

Canon 10: "Sacred Scripture teaches that Christ became the High Priest and Apostle of our confession. For He offered Himself as an odour of sweetness for us to God the Father. Therefore, if anyone says that it was not the Word of God, when He was made flesh and man like us men, but another besides Him, especially a (mere) man born of a woman, who became our High Priest and Apostle, or who says that He offered an oblation for Himself and not for us only (for He who was sinless needed no oblation): let him be anathema/'

Canon 11: "If anyone does not acknowledge that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and belonging to the very Word of God the Father, etc.: let him be anathema."

Canon 12. "If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and that He became the first-begotten of the dead according as He is life, and the Life-giver as God: let him be anathema."

By His Incarnation the Eternal Word became the Mediator between God and the fallen human race. As the second Adam and the Head of the whole human race, He offered Himself as the supreme substitute or vicarious Victim for us all in order to make adequate satisfaction for our transgressions and merit for us abundant grace.

The doctrine that Christ, by His passion and death, satisfied for our sins and merited for us grace and glory was taught by the Council of Trent; but, in order to express this truth more emphatically, as it were, and more solemnly, the following canon was prepared by the Fathers in the Vatican Council: "If anyone does not confess that the very Word of God, by suffering and dying for our sins in the flesh He assumed, could have made satisfaction or that He truly and properly did make satisfaction, and that He merited for us grace and glory: let him be anathema."

By the very act of the Incarnation Christ was constituted Priest. "When He was coming into the world, He said: Sacrifice and oblation Thou wouldst not; but a body Thou hast fitted for me. Holocausts for sin did not please Thee. Then said I: Behold, I come" (Heb. X, 5). As God He could not be priest; for this office He needed a created, even a passable nature. As man He was priest, as man He was victim, as man He offered sacrifice, although the infinite dignity of His priesthood and the infinite value of His sacrifice proceed from the dignity of His Divine Person.

Christ, then, according to His human nature, is both Priest and Victim on Calvary. "He is priest," writes Franzelin, "not according to His divine nature, but according to the human nature which He assumed, and according to this nature by no other consecration than by the divine destination and the voluntary acceptance of the office of redemption of the human race by the sacrifice of the cross; and this destination and acceptance of office are contained in the Incarnation itself" (De Verbo Incarnato, th. VI).

The following striking passage is found in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas: "The passion of Christ, considered in regard to His divinity, acts as an efficient cause; in regard to His will, as a meritorious cause; but as considered in His very flesh it acts by way of satisfaction, according as we are freed by it from the guilt of punishment; by way of redemption, according as we are freed by it from the slavery of sin; and by way of sacrifice, according as by it we are reconciled to God" (III, q. 48, a. 6, ad 3). In a previous passage the Angelic Doctor calls this deified flesh the most perfect sacrifice and quotes St. Augustine as expressing the same truth.

The constant teaching of the Church, expressed by both her solemn and her ordinary magisterium, is that Christ offered the Sacrifice of Redemption, i.e., made the priestly oblation of it, in His actual passion, and particularly on the Cross. Neither the traditional teaching of the Church nor her solemn pronouncements mention, or even imply, that the sacerdotal offering of the Sacrifice of Calvary was effected outside the passion itself.

Thus we read in the Preface of the Mass celebrated on theFeast of Christ the King: "Who didst anoint with the oil of exultation Thine only-begotten Son, the eternal priest and ruler of all, in order that, offering Himself on the altar of the cross as an immaculate and pacific victim, He might accomplish the sacraments of human redemption." The prayer of St. Ambrose, officially recommended by the Church, commences thus: "Supreme Priest and true Pontiff, Jesus Christ, who didst offer Thyself to God the Father as a pure and immaculate victim on the altar of the cross" etc. And the Council of Trent declared. "Although He was about to offer Himself on the altar of the cross" etc.

St. Thomas gives the traditional teaching of the Church when he writes: "Christ did not kill Himself, but voluntarily exposed Himself to death, as it is written, 'He was offered because He willed it/ and therefore He is said to have offered Himself." (Ill, q. 22, a. 2, ad 1.) And again: "The passion of Christ was the offering of a sacrifice insofar as Christ by His own will underwent death out of charity" (Ibid., q. 47, a. 4, ad 2). More than once in his theological writings the Angelic Doctor insists that Christ offered Himself on the altar of the cross. In his sermon which we read on the Feast of Corpus Christi He uses the same expression: "He offered His body on the altar of the cross to God the Father for our reconciliation," etc.

In the traditional teaching of the Church, so clearly set forth by St. Thomas and other eminent theologians, there is no confusion of thought; but certain modern writers have created some confusion by introducing (or, rather, in a sense, "smuggling") into the definition of sacrifice as an essential element something that St. Thomas and the older writers never contemplated as necessary. The introduction of this new element has been done by a certain "sleight of hand." While getting the unsuspecting reader to focus his attention on the adjectives visible, sensible, external, etc., which have always been applied to the offering required in sacrifice, these modern writers "run in," as a synonymous adjective, ritual or liturgical, which in reality contains or expresses a new idea. In the opening chapter I quoted St. Augustine's definition of sacrifice, which has become "canonized." I now give the original Latin: "Sacrificium visibile invisibilis sao rificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum, est." The author of "The Mystery of Faith and Human Opinion Contrasted and Defined" writes: "This brings us to St. Augustine's definition, which is traditional in the Church: 'The ritual sacrifice is the visible sign of the invisible sacrifice/ " (p. 6). It would be interesting to ascertain where this author finds the word ritual in St. Augustine's definition.

The reader, if he wishes to pursue this "sleight of hand" process further, need but turn to the second chapter of "Mysterium Fidei" (article III), in which the same author, after quoting Franzelin, Gihr, and Pesch, who make quite explicit the traditional teaching that in sacrifice there must be an external, visible, or sensible offering made to God, asks: "But now we must especially ask where and when that voluntary and active dedication of Himself, as a victim, was made by Christ unto the worship of God sensibly, ritually, liturgically. Which is the same as to ask by what external act Christ, in regard to His passion, acted as priest, by what rite He sacrificed," etc. Regarding such logic my only comment at present is: What a jump!

Why should Christ have found it necessary to offer the great Sacrifice of Redemption by any rite? Why should it have been necessary for Him to offer it in some ritual or liturgical manner? He needed no ceremony of ordination to make Him a priest; He was priest par excellence by the surpassing mystery of the Incarnation. He needed not to go through any liturgical form or to exercise any ritual ceremony in order to offer sacrifice; as He was priest by the Incarnation itself, as He was victim by that same mystery (at least the great Victim ready for sacrifice), so by any merely external act which showed that He was sacrificing His life to the Eternal Father for our ransom His Divine Sacrifice could be, and was, accomplished.

Throughout His public life Christ made it clear that He was going to lay down His life; that no-one had the power to take it from Him; that God so loved the world as to give up His only-begotten Son; that, if He were lifted up, He would draw all things to Him; that it was necessary that the Son of man should be lifted up. He spoke quite explicitly of His crucifixion, and made it clear that He was going to accept it voluntarily, after which He would rise from the dead. He stated expressly that He was going to sacrifice His life for our redemption (Mark X, 45, and Matt. XX, 28). When the time came for Him to offer the supreme sacrifice, again He made it clear that He was about to do so: "For them I sanctify myself," which means: 'Tor them I dedicate myself to sacrifice; for them I offer myself in sacrifice," etc. Finally, in order to manifest again quite plainly that He submitted with perfect freedom to His passion and death, He caused to fall prostrate those who had come to apprehend Flim.

In the light of all this, was not Christ's passion and death of itself quite plainly and clearly, to all who had the faith, a true sacrifice? Was is not quite clear that He was offering His life to the Father as a ransom for the world? Besides, His final cry, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," and the words, "It is consummated (or finished)," signify the consummation—the voluntary consummation—of the Sacrifice of Redemption. As St. Thomas writes, "A faithful people redeemed by the passion of Christ, giving thanks, exclaims: Thou, O Lord God of truth didst redeem me on Christ our head loudly crying: Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit" (Opusc. LIII, Art. XIX).

Even had Our Lord not uttered a single word, but simply allowed His executioners to stretch Him on the cross, nail Him to the gibbet, and suspend Him in agony until He bowed His head and gave up His soul, that would have been clearly discernible to all who had the gift of faith as the great Sacrifice of Atonement. Faith is, indeed, required in order to recognize this sacrifice, but was not faith at least equally required to recognize the oblation of the Last Supper, and is not faith at least equally necessary to recognize the Sacrifice of the Mass, surrounded though it be with all the splendor of the Church's ceremonial? In fact, greater faith, if possible, is required in the two latter cases, for—

"In cruce latebat sola Deitas, At hie latet simul et humanitas."

The truth stands out with undeniable clearness in the teaching of the Church from the earliest times, and was admitted unhesitatingly by both Catholics and so-called Reformers in the sixteenth century, that all the elements of a true, complete sacrifice are found on Calvary, where "the hand-writing of the decree that was against us was blotted out." A careful (even a casual) perusal of the debates that took place during the Council of Trent convinces us of this truth. We shall see later that the problem which the Fathers and theologians of the Council sought to solve was whether, and, if so, how Christ offered Himself in sacrifice also at the Last Supper.

Certain Fathers of the Church, in teaching that Christ's oblation of the Sacrifice of Redemption was made on the cross, use words that explicitly exclude the idea that we must look elsewhere for this active sacerdotal oblation of Our Redeemer.

Thus the Angelic Doctor writes: "And because the Church was not to be enclosed within the confines of the Jewish nation, but was to be established in the whole world, therefore the passion of Christ was not celebrated within the city of the Jews, but under the heavens (sub dio), so that thus the entire world may be as a house in regard to the passion of Christ" (III, q. 83, ad 1).

In his beautiful discourse, "De Cruce et Latrone," St. John Chrysostom states that Christ was offered on the cross and immolated on the cross, and that He was not offered as a sacrifice (of redemption) in the temple nor in a house." Thrice he emphasizes the fact that Christ was not offered "under a roof."

Bishop Alexander MacDonald, one of the modern writers who insists on a liturgical offering on the part of Christ as an essential part of the Sacrifice of the Cross, goes so far as to say: "On Calvary there was neither religious rite nor ceremony; there was wanting public worship of God" ("The Mass Explained," p. 41). This is another glaring instance of confusion of the external offering of a sacrifice with ritual oblation, as if external or sensible were convertible with ritual or ceremonial.

There most certainly was public worship of God on Calvary—the sublimest act of worship, viz., the redemptive act of the Word made flesh. There was also the worship of Magdalen and the other holy women and the Beloved Disciple. There was, too, and especially, the ineffable worship of the Immaculate Mother of God. It is passing strange that a writer can be so possessed of the idea of ritual or liturgical oblation as to overlook the sublime public worship mentioned.

Yes, on Calvary there was the Victim, the spotless Lamb of God; there was the altar—the cross (and, more exalted altar still, the adorable Body of the Word Incarnate, over which flowed His redeeming Blood); there was the great High Priest, Jesus Christ; there was the visible sacerdotal offering clear to all who had the gift of faith; there was the unique, incomparably devout congregation—Mary Immaculate, John the Beloved, Mary the loving Penitent, and the other holy women. There was also the solemn ceremonial with which inanimate nature, stirred by the Creator of the universe, surrounded the accomplishment of the stupendous sacrifice. And there was the conversion, the prayer, and the absolution of the dying thief, and there were also the acts of faith and repentance of those who descended the hill through the darkness of the eclipse, while they smote their breasts and exclaimed: "Truly this man was the Son of God."

The whole traditional teaching of the Church is aptly stated by Hurter when he says that the priestly action (actio sacerdotalis) in the Sacrifice of the Cross was the oblation of Christ manifested externally in the voluntary acceptance of His sufferings and death as an offering of Himself, and in the free surrender of His soul (in ipsa voluntaria spiritus emis-sione) according to the words recorded by St. John. (Tom. II, p. 513.)

In his widely read work, "Mysterium Fidei," Father de la Taille, having failed to discern, in the whole series of events "from the garden to the cross," any external expression or action on the part of Christ whereby He performed in a sensible, ritual, liturgical manner His sacrificial offering of the Sacrifice of Redemption, any external action whereby He acted as priest, any rite whereby He offered sacrifice, betakes Himself to the Last Supper as the ritual oblation of the bloody immolation, and combines the two—the Supper and the Cross—as partial, essential elements to constitute one complete sacrifice. But then he "gives his whole case away" in the following passage: "That oblation (begun in the Supper) necessarily continues, which, performed once, is not retracted, but is nourished by continual acts of the will and freedom, manifesting themselves externally (italics mine) by so many and so great actions and words of the Lord even till His death. Hence there is no moment at which the Priest who sacrificed (litavit) at the Supper, does not appear to us as pursuing, approving, and sanctioning His sacrificial act (suam litationem), not only internally, but also externally, by the very shedding of His blood—also on the cross, while Christ shows that He voluntarily undergoes suffering and death, by that very fact He signs and confirms, empurples and crowns, now by the blood of His passion, His solemn offering which He celebrated in an unbloody manner at the Supper" (pp. 102, 103).

It would be premature to deal here with the theory of Unicism propounded by this author. All I wish to remark at present is that, in the passage cited, there is the clear admission that, in the passion itself, Christ manifested externally and clearly the sacerdotal offering of the Sacrifice of Redemption.

The Sacrifice of the Last Supper

2007-04-05T11:44:00.000-04:00

Taken from "The Clean Oblation"

By REV. M. D. FORREST, M.S.C.

Nihil obstat: FRANCISCUS MOYNIHAN, CENSOR DEPUTATUS.

Imprimatur: QJID. MANNIX, ARCHIEPISCOPUS MELBOURNENSIS.

Melbourni, die ij° Aprilis, 1945.

Copyright, 1945
Radio Replies Press
St. Paul 1, Minn., U. S. A.

(A) PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE

The burden of St. Paul's inspired message to the Hebrews in the classical epistle which extols Christ's priesthood is this: By the Sacrifice of the Cross satisfaction for the sins of mankind and merit to procure every grace have been so completed and consummated, that the merit of Redemption cannot be increased, nor can any further sacrifice be offered whereby, apart from or independently of the fruit of the Sacrifice offered once for all, satisfaction and redemption may be procured.

In this Epistle, so much abused by the "Reformers," the Apostle compares the oneness of the bloody Sacrifice of the New Law with the many sacrifices of the Old Law. But he by no means teaches or even implies that the fulness of satisfaction and merit accomplished on Calvary excludes a perpetual, dependent sacrifice whereby this satisfaction and merit may be applied. "Indeed, if we consider the way in which the satisfaction of Christ calls for application," writes Franzelin, "and if we consider also the nature of public and solemn worship, which attains its perfection in sacrifice, we shall see that the institution of a perpetual sacrifice of this kind seems to be of necessity for the more perfect worship of the New Testament."

"Since there was no perfection (consummatio) under the former Testament, as St. Paul testifies, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood," declares the Council of Trent, "it was necessary, in accordance with the decree of God the Father of mercy, that another priest according to the order of Melchisedech should arise, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who could perfect all who were to be sanctified. Therefore this God and our Lord, although He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross, by undergoing death, in order thereby to effect eternal redemption, nevertheless, because His priesthood was not to be abolished by His death, declaring Himself a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father at the Last Supper, on the night on which He was betrayed. This He did in order that He might leave to His beloved spouse, the Church, according to the requirement of man's nature, a visible sacrifice by which that bloody sacrifice which was to be performed once on the cross would be represented, and its memory remain until the end of the world, and its salutary efficacy be applied for the forgiveness of those sins which we daily commit. He gave His body and blood under those same symbols to the Apostles, to receive them, and He at the same time constituted His Apostles priests, and by the words, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them (i.e. His body and blood). Thus the Catholic Church has ever understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Pasch, which the children of Israel were wont to immolate in memory of their departure from Egypt, He instituted the new Pasch, viz., Himself to be immolated under visible signs in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when, by shedding His own blood, He redeemed us and rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into His kingdom."

Although I have npt given a strictly literal translation, for such is impossible if we wish to have a presentable English rendering, I have faithfully translated the opening passage of the Tridentine Decree, as the reader may verify by comparing the above rendering with the original Latin. During the course of the present work I shall have occasion to refer again, and more than once, to this solemn Decree of Trent.

In due time I shall show that, according to the mind of Trent, as expressed in this Decree and in the debates that preceded its formulation in the Council, the Last Supper was a complete (unbloody) sacrifice, as Calvary was a complete (bloody) sacrifice; that the one supreme Sacrifice of Redemption offered on the cross has its sacramental replica in the Supper and in the Mass. Let us now consider the Sacrifice of the Supper as set forth in Sacred Scripture.

St. Matthew thus narrates the institution of the Eucharist: "Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (XXVI, 27 & 28).

The following is St. Luke's account: "Taking bread, He gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after He had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (XXII, 19 & 20).

St Paul writes: "The Lord Jesus, on the night on which He was betrayed, took bread and, giving thanks, broke it and said: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me" (1 Cor., XI, 24 & 25).

1. Note the words recorded by St. Luke: "This is my body which is given for you.' The use of the present tense is striking. St. Paul also used the present tense, though the Latin and English translations give the future of the verb. And the word used by St. Paul really means broken—my body, which If broken for you.

Likewise, St. Luke uses the present tense of the verb referring to the chalice: "This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood,, which is shed for you."

The word broken, used by St. Paul, can apply only to Christ's body given at the Last Supper under the form of bread, for it was not broken on Calvary. Now, a body given or broken for us, blood shed for us (at the present time) refer to a sacrifice actually offered—to a sacrifice offered hie et nunc, and, indeed, only to a victim offered in a sacrifice of propitiation, as the words, "for you," indicate.

There is, of course, no real objection to the English translation, for Christ's words may be paraphrased thus: "This is my body, which is now sacramentally given or broken for you, but which will be given in crucifixion tomorrow for the world. This is my blood, which is now sacramentally shed in the chalice, but which will be really poured out to-morrow for the redemption of mankind."

It is clear, then, that at the Last Supper Christ offered a sacramental sacrifice, which vividly represented and foretokened the bloody sacrifice He was about to offer on the cross.

2. The use of the expression, new testament, also clearly signifies a present sacrifice. It is obvious that this expression refers to the blood actually contained in the chalice, for (a) Christ used the present tense, and (b) St. Luke writes: "This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, and St. Paul clearly expresses the same truth: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood."

The three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and St. Paul all state the same truth, but St. Luke and St. Paul express more clearly that the blood of Jesus, sacramentally shed and offered in the chalice, sealed the New Testament.

What is a testament? The word here has two meanings: (a) covenant, or agreement or contract made between two parties; (b) legacy, or something bequeathed or left to us by a person's last will, which property or gift we receive when the testator dies. ("For where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is as yet of no strength, whilst the testator liveth."—Heb. IX, 16 & 17.)

(a) Under the Old Law God made a covenant or agreement, through Moses, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, with His chosen people. We read of this in the Book of Exodus, XIX-XXII. This covenant was sealed with the blood of sacrifice. When Moses had told the Israelites what blessings and gifts God had promised them, they slew calves as victims, and Moses, having read "the book of the covenant'* to the people and got them to promise to keep their part of the contract or compact with God, "took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people (he had already poured half of it on the altar) and said: 'This is the blood of the covenant (testament) which the Lord hath made with you."

Under the New Law God has given us far more precious gifts and much greater blessings than He gave in the Old Law, which was but a shadow or figure of the New Law. Christ promised most wonderful gifts and blessings to us, and asked great love and service in return. This is the new covenant or compact between God and man—the New Testament. And Christ sealed this compact or covenant with the blood of sacrifice—with His own Precious Blood: "This is my blood of the New Testament."

If we contrast Exodus XXIV, 7 & 8, with Luke XXII, 20, we can see at once that any Jew listening to Christ's solemn words at the Last Supper would have understood them to refer to a true sacrifice offered at that moment.

(b) The word testament means also legacy. At the Last Supper, which He celebrated just before His death, Jesus bequeathed to us His body and blood in the Sacrifice of the Mass, together with all the gifts of redemption. There also is the reason why He said: "This is my blood of the New Testament."

Christ established and sanctioned (or sealed) the New Testament at the Last Supper by offering a sacramental sacrifice, and then solemnly confirmed that Testament by actually shedding His blood, by offering the bloody sacrifice on the cross.

3. St. Paul writes: "We have an altar, of which they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle" (Heb. XIII, 10). Those who served the tabernacle were the adherents of the Jewish religion, which had been abrogated, or, rather, fulfilled in the Christian religion. Only those who were baptized in Christ could partake of the Divine Victim, the Lamb of God, immolated on the Christian altar. The word altar necessarily implies sacrifice. Without sacrifice there is no altar; where there is an altar, sacrifice is offered. So, when St. Paul teaches that we Christians have an altar and that only Christians may partake of it, he teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. But, if we read this teaching in the light of what he writes of the institution of the Last Supper, and consider especially his words, 'Tor as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show forth the death of the Lord" (1 Cor. XI, 26), it seems clear that Christ offered a true sacrifice at the Supper.

4. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians (X, 19-21), St. Paul writes ot pagan sacrifices and warns us that we must not eat or drink the things pagans offer in such sacrifices, and he calls the pagan altar "the table of devils." He speaks in the same passage of the Holy Eucharist, and it is quite clear from the contrast he makes between "the chalice of the Lord" and "the chalice of devils," and between "the table of the Lord" and "the table of devils," that he regards the Eucharist as a true sacrifice. The whole passage, from verse 19 to verse 21, refers to sacrifice. Even the pagan Greeks, who offered sacrifice, called their altars sacred tables, or simply tables. We find the word table used in the Old Testament for altar (Ezechiel XLIV, 16). When we compare the passage just quoted from St. Paul with the passage given in the chapter which immediately follows it, we feel impelled to exclaim with the great St. Peter Canisius: "What else did Christ do at the Supper but say Mass?"

This is in keeping with Tradition from the earliest times, as we see in the well known statement of St. Irenaeus: "Christ acknowledged the chalice of His blood and taught the new sacrifice of the New Testament, which the Church has received from the Apostles and offers to God throughout the world."

This traditional teaching (that the Last Supper was a true, complete sacrifice) is also clearly expressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in a discourse on the Resurrection, in which he says: "He who arranges all things by His power does not await the necessity that is imminent from the betrayal by Judas, nor the onslaught of the Jews as plunderers, nor the unjust sentence of Pilate, lest their wickedness be the source and cause of the salvation of mankind; but of His own accord He forestalls them and by a hidden kind of sacrifice, which cannot be discerned by men, He offers Himself as a sacrifice and immolates Himself as a victim—He who is at once Priest and Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. When did He do this? When He gave to His assembled disciples His body to eat and His blood to drink, He then clearly showed that the Sacrifice of the Lamb was already completed, for the body of a victim would not be suitable to eat if it were living. Hence, when He presented to His disciples His body to eat and His blood to drink, His body was already immolated in an unspeakable and invisible manner, in accordance with the freedom and power of Him who performed the mystery" (Migne, P. G., t. 46, col. 612).

(B) TEACHING OF PRE-TRIDENTINE THEOLOGIANS

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to deal with a divergence amongst modern theologians. One group has continued along the traditional road of Dualism, while a second group has branched off along the new road of Unicism.

Dualists hold that, at the close of His mortal life, Christ offered two complete sacrifices, an unbloody sacrifice at the Last Supper and the bloody Sacrifice of Redemption on Calvary. They hold also that all the elements of a complete (unbloody) sacrifice are found in the Mass, in which Christ formally offers Himself, by the ministry of His priests, and is formally put in the condition of sacramental victim, though, of course, the Mass is essentially dependent on Calvary, which it represents, commemorates, and applies.

Unicists maintain that Christ offered only one sacrifice— the Sacrifice of Redemption. This sacrifice, according to them, consisted of two essential elements, the ritual offering at the Supper and the bloody immolation on Calvary, which coalesce (like matter and form) into one complete sacrifice. In regard to the Mass Unicists are divided on the question of the immediate offerer, though they agree that there is no sacrificial immolation in the Mass—no immolation, that is, which could constitute, together with liturgical oblation, a true sacrifice—but that the bloody immolation of Calvary is the immolation, and the only immolation, which, united with the ritual offering of the Mass, constitutes the true sacrifice; that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is but the liturgical offering of the Victim immolated in a bloody manner on the cross and now a perpetual, glorified, formal Victim in heaven.

Bishop MacDonald, an ardent Unicist, holds (with the majority of Dualists) that Christ, as the principal offerer in the Mass, immediately and formally offers Himself, whereas Father de la Taille, an equally enthusiastic Unicist, maintains that Christ performs no such formal offering in the Mass, of which only the Church is the formal offerer. But all Unicists stoutly defend—or, rather, attempt to defend—that the Last Supper was an incomplete sacrifice, that it was but the ritual or liturgical offering of the bloody immolation which was to be carried out on the morrow.

As long as the Christian world was untroubled by attacks on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the truth that Christ offered Himself not only in the one, bloody Sacrifice of Redemption (the oneness of which sacrifice has ever been expressly and emphatically taught), but also in an unbloody manner in the Sacrifice of the Last Supper, was calmly accepted and, as it were, taken for granted, as necessarily contained in the doctrine that the Eucharist is a sacrifice; and so, prior to the revolt of the sixteenth century, not so many explicit theses on this matter are discernible in the writings of Fathers and theologians as are found in the works of defenders of the faith who have arisen since the Protestant rejection of the Mass. Still, even in the writings of earlier centuries, there are clear expressions of the truth that Christ offered Himself in a true sacrifice at the Supper, as is seen in the passages I have cited from St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Although the object of Catholic faith cannot change or be added to, for public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, still it may develop in various ways: (1) a new term (e.g., Trinity, consubstantial, transubstantiation) or a new phrase (e.g., ex opere operato) may be coined to express more clearly an unchanging doctrine; (2) what was hitherto but implicitly (though formally) contained in an article of faith may be explicitly stated or defined (e.g., that there are two wills in the Word Incarnate); (3) what was virtually revealed, i.e., deducible from two premises, one of which was formally revealed while the other is known with certainty from reason, may be clearly expressed as a theological conclusion (e.g., that the Word proceeds from the intellect of the Father).

At times an article of faith is defined, as it were, as the result of a spontaneous outburst of piety on the part of the faithful, as in the case of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Generally, however, articles of faith have been defined because such truths were assailed by false teachers. I do not imply that a solemn definition is always required to make a truth de fide. Indeed, many a truth has already been de fide before it was defined, for it was clearly contained in the deposit of faith and proposed as an article of faith by the Church's universal and ordinary magisterium. But often a solemn definition has rendered de fide a truth concerning which previously theologians were free to hold opposing opinions: it was not clear that such a truth was formally contained in the deposit of faith until the Church solemnly set her seal on the matter.

While still an Anglican, John Henry Newman wrote: "Moreover, it is as plain, or even plainer, that what the Christians of the first ages anathematized, included deductions from the Articles of Faith, that is, false developments, as well as contradictions of those articles. And, since the reason they commonly gave for using the anathema was that the doctrine in question was strange and startling, it follows that the truth, which was its contradictory, was also in some respect unknown to them hitherto; which is also shown by their temporary perplexity, and their difficulty of meeting heresy, in particular cases. . . . They anathematized the doctrine, not because it was old, but because it was new; the anathema would have altogether slept, if it could not have been extended to propositions not anathematized in the beginning; for the very characteristic of heresy is this novelty and originality of manifestation." (Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 351.)

Hence we must not expect to find, in the works of those who wrote before a new error was expressly formulated, such explicit, detailed teaching on this point as we see in the writings of those who formally and explicitly and data opera refuted the new error.

Now, the great attack on the Sacrifice of the Mass dates from the beginning of the sixteenth century, and hence it is that the Church's apologists from that time have treated more explicitly and at greater length, and defended more emphatically, the august sacrifice which is the very center and heart of Catholic worship. And hence also it is that Trent is the great Council which most clearly.expressed and most emphatically defined the Church's traditional teaching on this sublime mystery.

The author of Mysterium Fidel aptly states the matter thus: "In this I wish to recall and retain, what was remarked in our third thesis (Elucidatione) in general regarding points of such doctrine as there was no special reason for the Fathers to vindicate. In particular, perhaps, there was less need to define and distinguish those things which were, from frequent practice, well known to all Christians, amongst which, in the first place, was the Church's sacrifice. Hence the Fathers, as in a matter familiar to all, did not so much proceed in a didactic manner as they used presupposed knowledge for practical purposes. And in this kind of instruction we- must not expect, as a rule, that strict analysis and complete fitting together of parts which, driven by necessity, they manifested accurately in their discussion on the Trinity, the Incarnation, and Grace" (Elucid. XIX, p. 237).

No sooner, however, had the powers of darkness arisen in the sixteenth century to assail the Sacrifice of the Mass, than the Church's foremost champions leaped to the defense of this cherished mystery, and set forth in a clear, formal, explicit, didactic manner the traditional teaching concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

I shall briefly set forth the teaching of those brilliant defenders of the faith who wrote against Luther and his satellites prior to the Council of Trent. I single out ten leading theologians of that period: Emser, who wrote his work in 1523; Clichtove, 1524; Eck 1526; Pelargus, 1527; Herborn, 1530; De Castro, 1534; Faber, 1537; Smeling, 1538; Gropper, 1536; Dobeneck (Cochlaeus), 1544. To these I shall add the Canons of Cologne, 1544, and the Council of Sens, 1528. I shall quote also several later theologians who, although they wrote their works after the Council of Trent had been in progress, published them years before the Decree of Trent on the Mass had been passed, and so, in a sense, may be classed also amongst pre-Tridentine writers.

The "Reformers" harped constantly on the Epistle to the Hebrews and wore threadbare certain passages in that Epistle which speak of Christ's one oblation: "Christ was offered once to expiate the sins of many" (IX, 28); "He entered once into the holy places, having found eternal redemption" (IX, 12); "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever those who are made holy" (X, 14); "having offered one sacrifice for sins, He sitteth at the right hand of God" (X, 12). Insisting on their own interpretation of these texts, the "Reformers" stubbornly maintained that there was no oblation on the part of Christ at the supper, and that, consequently, the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, and cannot be, for thus it would derogate from the "one oblation" whereby we were redeemed.

Now, if the theologians I have mentioned above held the theory of Unicism, it would have been very simple for them to say to the "Reformers": "Of course Christ made only one oblation; of course He offered but one sacrifice; so say all of us. He made the liturgical offering of the Sacrifice of Redemption at the Supper and He completed the sacrifice on Calvary by His bloody immolation." But such a notion evidently never entered the mind of these pre-Tridentine theologians. And, if any of them had held that part of the second kind of Unicism which maintains that Christ performs no formal, immediate, personal oblative act in the Mass, they would have replied to their opponents: "Of course Christ made but one oblative act; in the Mass it is only the Church formally making a liturgical offering of Christ's bloody immolation— of Christ the everlasting victim." But, search as we may, we shall fail to find any such defense. And yet they professed to set forth the traditional teaching of the Church.

The whole attitude of the pre-Tridentine defenders of the faith, in dealing with the oft-repeated objection formulated from the Epistle to the Hebrews, may be given in the words of the Council of Sens (to which Council I shall presently return): "As to all those texts of the Apostle, one and the same answer must be given: They should all be understood of that oblation whereby Christ offered Himself on the cross in the visible form of His body to expiate the sins of the whole world."

These Catholic theologians agreed with the "Reformers" that all the elements of a true sacrifice were found on Calvary; that the Sacrifice of the Cross is the one, supreme, complete, absolute Sacrifice of Redemption. They never dreamed ol looking outside the passion or any liturgical action on the part of Christ as an essential element in the great Sacrifice. Never, in their defense of the faith, did they state or even imply that Christ made the redemptive oblation according to the rite of Melchisedech. Order and rite are certainly not convertible terms. If we wish a clear exposition of how Christ is priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, we may turn to the works of an earlier and far greater writer than any of the theologians I have mentioned. In the Summa (III, q. 22, art. 6) St. Thomas explains the various resemblances between Melchisedech and Christ. The pre-Tridentine theologians I am quoting were well aware of these points of resemblance, and they knew that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul was not contemplating the matter of Mel-chisedech's bread and wine offering or Christ's Eucharistic Sacrifice; that the purpose of this Epistle was to show the excellence of Christ's priesthood, its immeasurable superiority over the Levitical priesthood, its eternal fruits, and the absolute oneness and completeness and all-sufficiency of the Redemptive Sacrifice. In this Epistle, or at least in the texts quoted by the "Reformers," the Apostle is not considering the Last Supper, of which he has written elsewhere.

In reply to those Catholic Unicists who infer, from the fact that St. Paul speaks of Christ as priest according to the order of Melchisedech in offering the Redemptive Sacrifice, that He made the oblation of that sacrifice in the consecration of bread and wine at the Supper, a modern writer, Rev. W. Moran, D.D., says: "Here is the situation as seen from the standpoint of one holding Father de la Taille's view: the Apostle is working out the likeness between Christ and Melchisedech: the primary likeness he sees between them is a likeness of rite: he is quoting the only Scriptural passage that affords any foundation for that likeness of rite. And what does he do? He quotes the mention of Melchisedech's priesthood; he quotes the exercise of it in the blessing of Abraham; but he suppresses the mention of the bread and wine oblation! He deliberately cuts out the only foundation for the likeness that he has primarily in mind" (Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Dec. 1931, p. 579).

While agreeing with their opponents regarding the Redemptive Sacrifice, the pre-Tridentine theologians insisted on the truth that, although Christ offered but one Sacrifice of Redemption, as St. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Hebrews, nevertheless He also offered another sacrifice, the un bloody Sacrifice of the Last Supper, which we priests likewise offer in compliance with Christ's injunction: Do this in remembrance of me. They insisted that St. Paul's Epistle by no means excluded this unbloody sacrifice, which represents, commemorates, and applies the one supreme Sacrifice of Redemption. Let me now give the clear statements of these writers.

Emser: "That Lutheran objection is of no force, viz., that Christ offered Himself only once because He died but once and no longer dies; and hence, as that death and oblation of Christ cannot be repeated, so the Mass cannot be called a sacrifice. For Christ not only once (as he thinks), but three times on the same day offered Himself, as the Catholic Fathers hold.

. . . First ... in eating the Paschal Lamb . . . figuratively. Secondly . . . Christ offered Himself . . . sacramen-tally. Thirdly, Christ offered Himself no longer typically or sacramentally, but truly and really by dying in His own person on the cross."

Clichtove: "At what time did Christ, the true priest for ever, offer bread and wine according to the rite of Melchise-dech except at the Last Supper when He instituted this sublime mystery? For He did not offer bread and wine on the cross, but Himself in His own material form of body and blood. . . . Therefore Christ also at the Last Supper, when He consecrated bread and wine . . . truly offered sacrifice."

Eck: Luther and all Lutherans assume that Christ did not offer at the Supper. What if I replied with Emser that, according to the Fathers (post sanctos patres), Christ offered Himself thrice: First, in the Paschal Lamb figuratively. . . . Secondly, in bread and wine sacramentally. . . . Thirdly, He offered Himself on the cross truly and really in His holy passion and salutary death, which truths Emser develops at length."

Again Eck writes: "At the outset, therefore, if we seriously contemplate the Lord's Supper and what was done before and after, we shall see that Christ offered Himself in three ways (tripliciter). First, typically. . . . Then the Lord offered Himself in a sacramental manner. . . . Thirdly, the Lord Jesus offered Himself as a victim on the altar of the cross for the redemption of the whole world."

Pelargus: "Since it is manifest that, of those things which pertain to the function of the priesthood, the offering of sacrifice holds the first or chief place, it would be the height of impudence to say either that Melchisedech did not offer or that Christ did not express his (Melchisedech's) order by some sacrifice. By the sacrifice of the cross He conformed not so much to the sacrifice of Melchisedech ... as to that of Aaron, which was performed by that of blood, Therefore it will be proved that Christ at the Supper corresponded to the sacrifice of Melchisedech."

Herborn (or Nicholas Stagefyr): "Therefore, at the Las Supper, after He had offered Himself to the Father in figur (figuraliter), the Mosaic law with its priesthood and number less sacrifices being now finished, He at once (or soon—mox) as Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, con secrating bread and wine into His body and blood, now a second time offered Himself to the Father mystically (my terialiter) in the species of bread and wine, being about t consummate both after a short time and to offer Himself no~ a third time on the cross.'

De Castro: (Calvin) "clearly shows that he does not kno what we have proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture and the testimony of the Fathers to be true, that Christ made two, and very different oblations, the one unbloody in the Supper, the other bloody on the cross. There was one, indeed, and the same Victim in both oblations, viz., His body, which He offered to God in both oblations, but because He offered the same body to God the Father twice and in different manners, therefore I say that He made two different oblations of His body."

Faber: "This twofold oblation (hanc duplicem oblationem), visible in the flesh, and invisible in the Sacrament, according to the teaching of Paul, He gave Himself an oblation and a sacrifice (Eph. v)." Grammatically, we should insert per before hanc and read: "By this twofold oblation," etc. But I am not concerned with the Latinity or elegance of style of the writers whom I am quoting.

Smeling: "We have therefore, as we have said above, a twin oblation of Christ (geminam Christi oblationem) from the twin manner of offering (ex gemino offerendi modo), that is, in the Supper and on the Cross, which (quae) is nevertheless one because of the thing which is offered (ratione rei quae offertur), because only Christ is offered."

De Gropper: "We learn from these (statements of Hesy-chius) that Christ twice offered His true flesh and blood."

Cochlaeus: "What you prate (garris) about the 'once offered' is worn threadbare and has already been explained thousands of times in the true meaning. Therefore your equivocal arguing is too stupid, for you make no difference between the mystical oblation which Christ made at the Supper and the bloody oblation which Christ made on the Cross."

I shall here add the testimonies of three of the latest (as explained above) pre-Tredentine theologians: Tapper, who wrote in 1557 the work from which I shall quote; Fabri, 1559; and Kling, 1559.

Tapper: "This clean oblation ... is not that whereby Christ offered Himself once on the cross, since Christ offered Himself on the cross not amongst the nations nor in every part of the world; but it is that spoken of through the prophet: Sacrifice is offered in every place on earth. This very kind of sacrifice He both offered and instituted, when He offered to God the Father at the Last Supper His body and blood under the species of bread and wine."

Fabri: "There is this difference between the two (sacrifices): at the Supper Christ offered Himself under hidden and foreign species, viz., of bread and wine; but on the Cross in His own form of His body and blood. Another difference proceeds from the very cause or manner of offering."

Kling: "It must be noted that Christ offered Himself twice: first, to merit by His blood salvation for the whole world (Heb. IX). He entered once into the holy of holies; second, He offered Himself at the Supper, to make a memorial of His sacrifice enacted on the cross, and to do so under the species of bread and wine according to the manner of Melchisedech."

Note:
In The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Feb. 1932, I reviewed at length El Sacrificio de la Ultima Cena del Senor segun el Concilio Tridentino, by Manuel Alonso, S.J. To this book, which is a mine of research work, I am indebted for the above testimonies, as also for those given in the next two chapters. Readers who desire detailed references and further testimonies should read Father Alonso's invaluable work.

(C) THE CANONS OF COLOGNE AND THE COUNCIL OF SENS

In 1544 the Cathedral Chapter of Cologne published a work entitled Antididagma. The actual author was Gropper, though the Canons as a body approved the work and issued it in the name of the Chapter. The following passage in translated from the Latin edition of this book, which was first published in German:

"In the entire Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles it has been unanimously handed down that our Lord Jesus Christ in His most sacred Supper not only distributed to His Apostles His Flesh and Blood under the species of bread and wine, but also at the same time offered a new Sacrifice to His Heavenly Father and commanded the Apostles to do the same until the end of the world. . . . No Christian who is even moderately versed in Scripture can ever declare otherwise than what the Gospel says, that Christ . . . when He was passing from this world to the Father, offered two kinds of sacrifice (duplicis generis sacrificium obtulisse). One, indeed, on the Cross—bloody . . . And this is that Sacrifice of the New Law, which was offered only once on the Cross, and is no longer offered thus. And it is that one sacrifice (or victim—hostia) which merited for us forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For by one oblation, says the Apostle, He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. But when the Heavenly Father decreed to establish, by the death of His only-begotten Son, the New Testament and covenant of grace with us, He had also to provide that a perpetual sacrifice . . .should be instituted and revealed by His authority. And therefore Christ the Lord, when He had willed to offer Himself for us as a bloody sacrifice, at the same time on that same night on which He was betrayed, before His passion, when He had already decreed to undergo it, instituted and bequeathed to us an exemplar of that, His bloody Sacrifice, henceforth to be celebrated in the Church perpetually. And this very (exemplar) is that other Sacrifice (alterum istud sac-rificium), not bloody, but unbloody."

Clichtove (whom I have quoted above), at the request of Cardinal Duprat, assisted at the Provincial Council of Sens in 1528, in which he took a leading part in formulating Catholic doctrine against the "reformers." I shall quote one passage from the Synodal Decrees and another from Clichtove's commentary, published a year later as a compendium of the teaching of the Synod.

Council of Sens: "Although Christ, our perpetual High Priest, not by the blood of goats or of calves, but by His own Blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption, nevertheless it cannot be denied that He is a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, and therefore, following the latter's example, He offered a sacrifice which, by the external form of bread and wine, corresponded to that ancient oblation of Melchisedech. This He certainly did at the Last Supper, for He was Priest of the Most High God. For, taking bread, He gave thanks and broke and gave to His disciples, saying: This is my Body which is given to you, and He commanded that this be repeated by the priests of the Gospel by a perpetual observance. Do this (He said) in remembrance of Me. For this is the holocaust, this is the sacrifice for sin, this is the peace victim, this is the clean oblation which Malachy foretold would be offered in every place."

Glichtove's Compendium: (Having shown that Christ is Priest according to the order of Melchisedech) "Therefore Christ also must have sacrificed and offered a victim to God in bread and wine. But nowhere did Christ do this but at the Last Supper, when He instituted the Sacrament of His Sacre Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine. For H did not, when offering Himself on the Cross for our salvatio sacrifice Himself under the form of bread and wine, but i His natural substance visible to all."

Thus we see that the teaching of pre-Tridentine theol gians on the Last Supper, formulated expressly as tl Church's traditional doctrine, to counteract the errors of t1 "reformers," may be summarized in three statements writte by the golden pen of that great apostle, doctor, and sain Peter Canisius: (1) What else did Christ do at the Supper b say Mass? (2) The fact that Christ offered Himself on th Cross did not prevent Him from also offering Himself at the Supper. (3) In His supreme love, Christ the Lord offered Himself for us twice: on the Cross and at the Supper.

(D) CARDINAL STANISLAUS HOSZ

As the light of St. Peter Canisius shone intensely upon lower Germany and Switzerland, radiating the Church's traditional teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, so the brightness of Stanislaus Hosz illumined Poland, shedding everywhere the orthodox doctrine regarding the great Mystery of Faith. Not that the splendor of these two great scholars and zealous champions was confined to those respective countries, for, indeed, their brightness permeated the European continent.

Of Hosz (Latin Hosius) the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "Hosius was one of the greatest men of his time. He did more for the preservation of the Catholic doctrine in Poland than all the other Polish Bishops combined." A graceful Latinist, a brilliant theologian, an indefatigable exponent and defender of orthodoxy against the "reformers," appointed inquisitor by Pope Julius III, he was commissioned by the Bishops assembled in the Synod of Piotrkow in 1551 to draw up a Profession of the Catholic Faith. All the Bishops agreed to and signed these articles, which the renowned author expanded into an elaborate work and published under the title, Confessio Fidei Catholicae Christianas This work is considered a masterpiece of polemics, characterized by excellent Latinity and manifesting profound scholarship in Scripture and Patristic Theology. More than thirty editions were published during the lifetime of the author, and it was translated into ten languages. In this book, as we shall presently see, Hosz clearly and emphatically teaches Dualism.

Created Cardinal by Pope Pius IV, Hosz was later appointed by the same Pontiff as one of the five Papal Legates to preside over the Council of Trent. In fact, he was the third President. Surely this eminent scholar and Cardinal Legate, who took so prominent a part in the actual Council, should be listened to with docility when he states what Trent meant by its solemn decree on the Mass. I shall presently give the remarks he made on this matter in a letter he wrote to his personal friend, Peter Canisius, just after the Tridentine decree had been finally accepted by an overwhelming majority. But first let us consider what he taught in his famous work, Confessio Fidei, published some ten years before the Tridentine decree on the Eucharistic Sacrifice was passed.

"Did not Melchisedech foreshadow Christ the Priest? Who also Himself offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine; in which oblation He declared Himself priest according to the order of Melchisedech. For in the oblation which was made on the altar of the cross there seems to have been expressed rather the form of priesthood according to the order of Aaron than according to the order of Melchisedech." (p. 59)

"It is certain and beyond all doubt that the paschal lamb in the Old Law was a figure of the spotless Lamb, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who was to offer Himself a victim on the cross to God the Father. But that figure does not correspond in every way to the Victim on the Cross, but to that in the Supper. For we read that the lamb was immolated by the Hebrews in remembrance of that favor (beneficii) whereby the people of Israel were delivered from the slavery of Pharaoh and led out of Egypt; but the immolation of the Lamb without spot on the altar of the cross was not effected in memory of any favor, but was the favor itself, the deliverance itself from sins, the redemption itself from the oppressive yoke of Satan's captivity. Hence it was necessary that by the immolation of the paschal lamb another immolation besides that effected on the Cross should be signified, which was effected by Christ at the Last Supper, and this He instituted to be henceforth effected by His priests also in commemoration of Him and in remembrance of His passion and death." (p. 59)

In a letter written to St. Peter Canisius shortly after the Tridentine decree had been formally adopted, Cardinal Hosz stated: "I could not refrain from writing this to you. Since there was a heated discussion in our Synod of Trent as to whether Christ had offered Himself at the Supper (for there were not wanting those who, like the Lutherans also, denied than any oblation was made at the Supper), I have thought that it would be worth while, in confirmation of the doctrine which at last prevailed in the Council and which we also had defended in our 'Confessio,' to insert in the third Antwerp edition the sentences of the Fathers (i.e., the early Fathers of the Church—writer's note). We have produced, amongst other testimonies, what Gregory of Nyssa wrote on this matter" (Letter contained in St. Peter Canisius' letters collected by Father Otto Braunsberger).

The passage in the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa referred to by Hosz is well known, and was quoted in the fourth chapter of the present work. It clearly shows that St. Gregory regarded the Last Supper as a complete sacrifice.

(E) THE GREAT CANISIUS

On a bright summer morning (the Feast of St. Joachim) in 1929, two clerical friends drove me around Fribourg. Amongst the interesting things pointed out to me, one stands out in my memory and imagination in a vivid manner: a wayside chapel we visited, in which a blind Benedictine priest said his daily Mass. "This chapel," explained one of my affable companions, "is erected on the spot where St. Peter Canisius consecrated this canton to the Blessed Virgin, and to this consecration the Fribourg people attribute the perseverance of their forefathers in the faith, which has been passed down unsullied to them."

That Peter Canisius was a great apostle, a keen and scholarly theologian, and a brilliant controversialist, is known to every Catholic student. On May 21, 1925, he was solemnly canonized and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. He was fully conversant with all the teachings of the so-called reformers of his age, and at the same time thoroughly informed of the progress, the debates, and the decrees of the Council of Trent. Particularly in regard to the Holy Eucharist was he a champion of orthodoxy.

Father de la Taille rightly states that St. Peter Canisius "more than anybody else stood as a champion against Protestant perversions, and (indirectly) against certain fashions of meeting them with statements of doctrine not 'rightly understood' " (Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1925, p. 586), and fittingly declares that the Catechism of Canisius "was the bulwark of the Faith in all countries that defended themselves successfully against heresy*' (American Ecclesiastical Review, July, 1924).

It will, then, be deeply instructive to ascertain from the very writings of St. Peter Canisius, what exactly he taught regarding the Last Supper and the Mass. And here it will be of interest to quote from a paper read by Father de la Taille at the Summer School of Catholic Studies held at Cambridge, July 24-29, 1922.

"Before concluding," declared this eminent theologian, "I may perhaps be permitted to tell a little story. At the close of my second year of professing theology, in 1906, finding myself at Accrington, I was asked by the Rector of the church there, Father Martin, to give a course of sermons on the Mass. I replied that I would willingly preach on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, on Holy Communion. 'No, on the Sacrifice/ he said, 'on the Mass.' I felt rather afraid to speak on the subject, no theory having ever approved itself to me, save one, for which I knew of no authority amongst the theologians of modern times. I went to the library of the house in search of some respectable patron. The first book that attracted my notice was the Catechism of Blessed Peter Canisius, which I had never opened before. I opened it, and found there the definition to which I have referred above. All my fears were gone. I preached the desired course of sermons, which in later years developed into a course of university lectures, and finally into a volume, to which I beg to refer my readers" (Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist, published by W. Heffer & Sons, p. 126).

In his lectures, in his controversies, and in his classic work (Mysterium Fidei), Father de la Taille attributes great importance to, and sets great value on, the definition of the Mass as given by St. Peter Canisius. Thus the distinguished professor renders the definition in English: "The Sacrifice of the Mass rightly understood is both a representation, at once holy and living, and an offering, unbloody yet actual, of the Passion of the Lord and of the bloody sacrifice which was offered for us on the Cross."

Commenting on this definition, he states: "You see the two elements combined in the definition: first, a representation (symbolical, of course) of the passion and death of the Lord; second, an oblation, real though bloodless, of the same passion and death. The Mass, whilst picturing, also tenders unto God the sacrifice of the Cross. That is offered which is represented. You represent Christ's death; you offer Christ's death. Such was the catechism taught to our forefathers, not only in Germany, but also, as might be shown, in other countries as well" (Ibid., p. 122). And again: "There can be but little doubt, therefore, that to St. Peter Canisius, the Supper itself must have been, what we have seen it to be for the above theologians, a representation assuredly, holy and living, but at the same time, the bloodless, yet actual oblation of the Passion of the Lord, and of the Bloody Sacrifice that was to be on the Cross offered for us furthermore'' (Irish Ecclesiastical Review, ibid.).

In later editions of his works, however, Father de la Taille admitted that it was doubtful whether St. Peter Canisius "actually welded the Supper and the Passion into one Sacrifice" (Cf. The Mystery of Faith and Human Opinion, p. 307, and recent editions of Mysterium Fidei, "Elucid. X," ad calcem.).

The real question I wish to settle in this chapter is: What is the teaching of St. Peter Canisius, admittedly brilliant champion of orthodoxy, on the Eucharistic Sacrifice? Was he a unicist or a dualist? From Canisius' definition of the Mass Father de la Taille derived courage ("all my fears were gone") and inspiration to preach a series of sermons which the learned writer later developed into the famous work, Mysterium Fidei. Besides, the singular authority enjoyed by St. Peter (explained above) endows his teaching on the Mass with extraordinary importance. Let us, then, go to the writings of Canisius.

First of all, let us consider carefully his definition of the Mass. The original definition was expressed in Latin, and is worded thus:

Missae sacrificium, si rem omnem aeque perpendimus, est revera Dominicae passionis et illius cruenti sacrificii, quod in cruce pro nobis est oblatum, sancta quidem et viva repraesentatio atque simul incruenta et efficax oblatio.

Two questions may now be proposed: (1) Has Father de la Taille correctly translated this Latin definition? (2) Does his theory of unicism coincide with the teaching of St. Peter Canisius? These questions must be answered calmly in the light of evidence carefully examined.

1. Has the distinguished author correctly translated the definition?

Answer: (a) Why does he give actual as the English of efficax? These two words certainly have not the same meaning. One could not, for instance, define a sacrament as an actual sign of grace. St. Peter obviously had a special reason for using efficax.

(b) The words oblatio and offerre may be used either in a broad or in a strict sense. Oblatio in the broad sense has precisely the same meaning as sacrificium; offerre in the wide meaning of the term is the exact equivalent of sacrificare. Throughout the debates in the Council of Trent offerre and oblatio were used in the broad or wide meaning of the terms.

That Canisius used oblatio in the definition in this sense seems clear from what he has written a few lines previously in his Catechism: sacrificium offertur, oblatio sacrificatur. In his other writings he certainly uses the work in the wide meaning.

Now, if oblatio in the definition has the broad meaning, as seems certain, then the genitive nouns, passionis, sacrificii, logically depend only on repraesentatio, for it gives at least a clumsy meaning to the sentence to attach them to oblatio when equivalent to sacrifice.

(c) The word both (et) is not found in the Latin, but is, in fact positively excluded by the conjunction atque. Why, then, is it inserted in the above translation?

Bearing the above-mentioned points in mind, we should thus translate the Latin definition formulated by Canisius:

The Sacrifice of the Mass rightly understood is a holy and living representation of the Lord's passion and of that bloody sacrifice which was offered for us on the Cross, and at the same time an unbloody and efficacious oblation (sacrifice).

This English translation corresponds perfectly with the translation given in the first German edition of the Catechism, published in 1556, and well known to St. Peter Canisius. The German translation is worded as follows:

Welches opffer der heiligen Mess so die sach wol erwegen, ist ain warafftige, heilige und lebendige vorbildung des leidens unsers Herren und blutigen opffers, so fur uns am creutz ist aufgeopffert, und zugleich ain unbleutiges und krafftigs opffer.

Hence we are led on to question:

2. Does the theory of unicism coincide with the teaching of St. Peter Canisius?

Answer: No theory which regards the Last Supper as an incomplete Sacrifice can be reconciled with the writings of this great Apostle and Doctor, who was an unmistakable dualist.

St. Peter Canisius wrote, besides his triple Catechism, numerous works, a list of which may be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. "There still remain unpublished," says the writer in the Encyclopedia, "four or five volumes containing eleven hundred and ninety-five letters and regesta written to or by Canisius, and six hundred and twenty-five documents dealing with his labors." Father Otto Braunsberger, S.J., has edited a work, in five volumes, entitled Beati Petri Canisii Societalis lesu Epistulae et Acta. In conducting extensive research work for his scholarly volume, El Sacrificio Eucaristico de la Ultima Cena del Senor segun el Concilio Tridentino, Father Manuel Alonso, S.J., visited many archives and consulted many publications. "In the first place," says this learned writer, "we read in some particular archives the writings of St. Peter Canisius, being guided by his works and by a letter which Father Braunsberger sent us. We have consulted the following manuscripts: Can. 17, 19, 22, 25, 34, 37, 51." To Father Alonso I am indebted for the passages quoted from the manuscripts of the Saint.

The following passages from the writings of St. Peter Ca-nisius most clearly show that he was a dualist. The first quotation is from his Catechism, the others from his sermon manuscripts.

1. "And from these (Fathers) it is perfectly clear (liquido constat) that Christ is called, and is, our sacrifice in two ways (duplici modo). For on the Cross he offered Himself for us as a bloody victim, in order that He, the Lamb without spot, might correspond to the type of the paschal lamb, which was immolated among the Jews, i.e., the reality to the figure. But in the Supper, as on the Altar, in an unbloody manner and rite . . . He (idem) willed to be offered that the figure of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, might be fulfilled" (Summa Doct. Christ, de Sacramentis, 7).

"The simple Christian should know and hold firmly the following regarding the Mass: (1) That the Mass is not a useless thing ... (2) That it is not something new ... (6) That it was not thought out or instituted by man, but by Christ Himself, who celebrated Mass Himself that He might declare Himself a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, yea, two Masses: for what else did He do at the Supper but say Mass, when He consecrated bread and wine, offered, received, and gave to others? And that Mass was long if we consider that He first rendered praise, that He gave thanks and blessed, that He preached to and instructed His own; afterwards He sang a hymn before He went forth to the Mount of Olives. Thus also at the present time, before we come to the principal work of the Mass, we recite prayers and praises, we read and chant passages from the prophetic and apostolic writings, and in the end we again give thanks.

"The second Mass (secunda is underlined in the ms.) of Christ, still more perfect and more praiseworthy, was celebrated on the altar of the Cross, where He offered Himself to the Father and showed a pattern or model (exemplar) to the ministers of the Church, which they should have before their eyes, which they should represent and do (facerent) in memory of the bloody oblation, as Christ Himself did, and thus show forth His death without ceasing until He should come Himself not in a borrowed form (non in forma aliena), but in His own glorious form, not as the Savior, but as the Judge, to judge the living and the dead" (Can. 19, fol. 123V, 124X. De audienda Missa die festo).

3. 'That Christ offered Himself on the Cross did not prevent Him from also offering Himself at the Supper and being a priest according to the order of Melchisedech" (Quod Christus seipsum in cruce obtulit non impedit quominus etiam seipsum offerret in coena)" (Can. 34, fol. 45r).

4. "In my last sermon I promised to treat now in a special manner of the great Sacrifice of the Mass ... I shall state the reasons which urge me to do so. . . . First, amongst all the articles of faith argued about to-day, there is not one concerning which the 'new Christians' (neoehristiani) contend more strenuously, fight more seriously against us Catholics, shout more frequently and vigorously, judge more unworthily .. . The second reason is for the sake of the people of Fribourg. . . . The third reason pertains to my office: I wish, as is right, to conform to the Constitution of the Fathers (of Trent), Sess. 22, Chapter VIII, where preachers are commanded to teach about the Mass and to explain its parts. . . . Christ the Lord, in His supreme love, offered Himself for us twice.

"(1) On the Cross, in a bloody, suffering, and mortal manner, when He hung between two thieves . . . Then He, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, the propitiation for our sins, was wounded because of sin. Thus He was offered once for our salvation and redemption.

"(2) At the Supper in an unbloody manner under the species of bread and wine, that He might show Himself a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. He ordained priests of the New Testament to do and offer what He (had done and offered) in memory of His passion, in thanksgiving for the redemption effected on the Cross, and in supplication that we may be sharers of the holy oblation and death of the Lord-Therefore the reformers (novatores) err who say that in the Supper Christ only instituted the Sacrament of the Altar and who do not wish to discern in it the Mass and its foundation. For they sin against Christ and His last Testament bequeathed unto us. They sin against the Church . . . and they sin against the prophecies of Scripture. . . . They mutilate the Scriptures, which speak not only of a sacrament, but also of a sacrifice. They accept the texts concerning the bloody oblation, 'By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified' (Heb. x.) 'He offered Himself once' (Heb. ix). But they do not admit that Paul treats of this bloody sacrifice on the Cross in comparison with the legal sacrifices that were repeated daily by the priests and neither availed for the remission of sins nor sanctified anyone nor appeased God nor freed from guilt and punishment. Nor does Paul therefore deny an oblation commemorative of the same passion and death of the Lord, instituted by Christ, which is now performed by priests. . . . For what is the foundation of the whole matter I have undertaken? That Christ offered Himself in two ways (dupliciter) to the Father, on the Cross and at the Last Supper. On the Cross, by delivering His Body unto death for us and shedding His Blood for the remission of sins, He thereby showed Himself a Lamb and Shepherd— the Lamb who alone takes away the sins of the world; the shepherd who gave His Body and life unto blood for His sheep. Without this oblation our oblation is of no avail; on account of this oblation were made the oblations in the Old Testament as images of this future one. In the Apocalypse the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world. . . . "Christ offered Himself to the Father at the Supper, when He took bread and wine, gave thanks, blessed, and pronounced the words over the bread and wine and changed them by the power of His word into His Body and Blood, and then gave them to His disciples to be received, with this precept: 'Do this . . .' What is the Mass? All that which Christ did at the Last Supper and commanded to be done" (Can. 37, fol. 485, 49vy, 551-).

It is abundantly clear, then, that the author of Mysterium Fidei was mistaken in claiming, explicitly or by implication, as "a respectable patron" of his theory of unicism the great apostle, apologist, theologian, and writer, Peter Canisius. Nor does that statement suffice which, after more mature examination, he appended as a note in later editions of his works, viz., that it is doubtful whether Canisius held this theory. There is no doubt whatever about St. Peter's teaching, which was unmitigated, undiluted, unmistakable dualism.

But the Gregorian Professor was certainly right, when he wrote, besides the graceful eulogies of Canisius quoted above, that this saint was "most conversant with patristric theology, a singular glory of the Society of Jesus, whose Catechism was a most effective bulwark against the onslaughts of the 'reformers' not only in Germany, but also in France, and practically throughout the world" (Mysterium Fidei, p. 238).

Trent's Teaching on the Last Supper

(A) SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The Council of Trent may be called the Eucharistic Council, not because it was the first Council to set forth the Church's teaching regarding the great mystery of the Eucharist, nor because it dealt exclusively with this doctrine, but because it formulated and defined in fuller, clearer, more emphatic language than any other Council the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist and, in particular, of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

This Council extended over a long period. In fact, it was twice interrupted; thus there are really three distinct periods in the history of the Council: (1) from December, 1545, to March, 1547; (2) from May 1st., 1551, to April 28th., 1552; (3) from January 18th, 1562, to December 4th, 1563.

With the first period of the Council we are not concerned in the present study, for, although the doctrine was discussed and it is sufficiently clear from the discussions that the Supper was considered a complete sacrifice, no formula was as yet drafted.

Towards the end of the second period (from December 3rd, 1551) a formula of doctrine was drawn up and agreed upon, although, owing to another interruption of the Council, this draft remained a mere prepared formula. It was proposed during the third period of the Council that this formula should be accepted, but the proposal was overruled by Cardinal Seripando, who presided, and who gave as the reason of his opposition that there were now present more than one hundred and eighty prelates, whereas only some seventy had attended during the second period. Hence, the Cardinal maintained, the matter contained in the prepared formula should be reopened for discussion. It is certainly instructive to note the following passage in this previously accepted formula: "From what has been said, it is clear that Christ the Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass and that He, the first of all, celebrated it at the Last Supper."

Much has been written of the history of the famous Council of Trent, and probably volumes will still be written of that immortal Synod. We have had at hand for long years past valuable accounts of the discourses, the debates, and the votes of Trent, though many of these accounts are admittedly meager. We must not imagine that the few words, or even few lines, attributed to various speakers, are anything remotely approaching the discourses actually delivered. The secretaries, Massarelli and Paleotti, hastily jotted down, like our shorthand writers, a very brief resume—what they considered the essence or leading thought—of many a speech.

Sarpi is an unreliable, prejudiced historian of the Council; his work was put on the Roman Index. Pallavicini is an honest, earnest narrator, though his ardent faith may have unconsciously colored some of his narration. Theiner's work, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia was "very imperfectly edited," and, as for Theiner himself, "whether he died at peace with the Church is doubtful." Ehses continually corrects Theiner, and into Ehses' own work certain errors (perhaps printer's errors) have crept. The Anglican writer, Trevor, depended, at least in part, on the unreliable, misguided Sarpi. Le Plat will well repay perusal. Lepin is worthy of the highest commendation for his zealous, careful collection of Tridentine testimonies bearing on the Sacrifice of the Mass (and, at least incidentally, on the Supper).

Within the past few years (or, to be exact, in 1930) a brilliant Spanish Jesuit, Father Manuel Alonso, has given to the theological world the priceless fruits of long, painstaking research work regarding the Council of Trent, and the Last Supper. His volume bears the title: El Sacrificio Eucaristico de la Ultima Cena del Senor segun el Concilio Tridentino.

This splendid work I reviewed at great length in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, February, 1932. Reviews of it have appeared also in other ecclesiastical periodicals. All the reviews agree in giving unstinted praise to Father Alonso for accomplishing extraordinary research work. The following laudatory passages I quote from "The Month":

"After reading Father Alonso's scholarly book one cannot but feel thankful for having come at last into possession of some real facts and documentary evidence to help the theologian to elucidate a much debated problem. . . . Father Alonso, realizing that this was as yet an unexplored field, set himself the arduous task of securing first-hand evidence which might enable him to go to the very bottom of the problem. A mere glance at the catalogue of unpublished documents, unearthed by him and subsequently used in his book, shows that he carried out his task with painstaking thoroughness. . . . Father Alonso proceeds to examine the official acts of the different meetings of the Council, and he gives us a clearer insight into their true meaning from the original speeches of the Theologians and Fathers, as well as from their written votes and their numerous letters. ... Its (this volume's) well written and well documented pages cannot possibly be ignored. They are too scholarly not to command attention; and we should not be surprised if this valuable contribution to Theology should change the mind of many theologians."

We may distinguish two classes of historians: those who write history in general and those who deal with a particular period of history. Narrowing this down to those who write the history of a particular country, we have (1) those who write the entire history of that country, and (2) those who write of a particular period of the history of the country under consideration.

Further divisions are conceivable. For example, one writer may cover the entire history of the United States of America; another may write exclusively on the War of Independence or the Civil War; yet another may center his attention on the latter war as waged in some particular State or even in some individual city or town.

Now, I maintain that, ceteris paribus, an historian who focuses the whole of his attention and scholarship on a particular period or particular place commands, generally speaking, greater consideration on our part regarding the subject he treats because he is far more likely to- give us valuable details not included in a general history.

Such being the case, in studying the question as to what the Council of Trent defined concerning the Last Supper, what meaning the Fathers and Theologians attached to certain terms, what discussions took place, great importance must be attached to the volume written by Father Alonso, who specialized in this particular matter. This formerly distinguished professor in the Pontifical University of Comillas tells us in the preface to his monumental work what efforts he made to explore thoroughly every avenue of information concerning the Council of Trent and the Last Supper. I shall translate his own words:

"First of all I studied in some particular archives the writings of St. Peter Canisius. To these I was guided by his works and by a letter sent me by Fr. Braunsberger. . . . Secondly, as Paleotti assures us that Salmeron composed a treatise on the ancient authorities who teach that the Supper was a sacrifice, and that he wrote various reasons to confirm this teaching, I have searched for this manuscript in our archives. . . . Thirdly, in the Library of Naples I have read various writings of Cardinal Seripando, who was President of the Council during the Twenty-second Session, which is the principal object of my study. . . . Fourthly, in this same volume (the second tome of the publications of the Goerresian Society) one can read the account which Dr. Merkle gives of the codices of the Vatican Archives and the Vatican Library on matters relating to the Council of Trent."

Because of Ehses' habit of correcting Theiner, Fr. Alonso found it necessary to study the original work of Massarelli, and here he found in an important passage that in coena (according to Theiner), and not in cruce (as Ehses substituted) must be read. This is not the only case in which Alonso found he could not follow the text as given by Ehses.

Fr. Alonso adds: Finally, I have found in particular archives the votum of the Bishop of Chioggia, which, although we may say that it was published by its author in one of his works, I have nevertheless judged fit to publish in the appendices of my work in order that all may see the form in which it was pronounced or read in the Council."

Again: "Besides the documents of which I have just spoken (the discourse of Clodiensis, the reasons of Salmeron, and the manuscripts of St. Peter Canisius), I now present a list of other documents which may be found, not in particular archives (like the former writings), but in archives to which any student has access."

I shall not weary the reader with this long list of docu-mentos ineditos, which the learned author now puts at our disposal. Suffice it to say that, thanks to the patient, thorough, scholarly investigation carried out by Father Manuel Alonso, the theological world is now in possession of priceless manuscripts of some of which even the very existence seemed scarcely known to many theological writers. No further writer who attempts to give an exhaustive treatise on the Eucharistic Sacrifice can afford to ignore (or even not to study carefully) Fr. Alonso's incomparable work on the Last Supper according to the Council of Trent.

(B) THE STAR THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL

All Catholic theologians joyfully pay their grateful tribute to St. Athanasius, the star theologian, who succeeded in having the tern homoousios (consubstantialis) inserted in the definition of Nice. All proclaim with equal joy and gratitude the successful efforts of St. Cyril, another star theologian, to have the term Theotokos (Deipara) defined at Ephesus. But it seems that certain modern writers do not realize that Fr. Alonso Salmeron was the star theologian in the Council of Trent, or that is was largely due to his zealous efforts that we have the precious words corpus et sanguinem suum obtulit in the first chapter of the twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent. With the word obtulit I am especially concerned at present. Salmeron's efforts to embody this word in the final Decree triumphed, even against the determined efforts of Cardinal Seripando, who presided over this Session. In the light of what I have already written, I make no apology for basing my account on the work of Father Alonso, although he is by no means the only author I have consulted on this matter.

That Alonso Salmeron, S.J., and his Superior General, Diego Lainez, were papal theologians at the Council of Trent; that Salmeron attended all the sessions held during the three periods of the Council; that these two eminent theologians spoke first in the gatherings of theologians and were the first to record their vota in the preparatory sessions —all this is known to everyone who has read the history of this great Council. But all are evidently not aware of the powerful influence exercised by Salmeron at Trent.

St. Peter Canisius, in commenting on Salmeron's work at Trent, said of this great theologian: "He had the first place among the theologians, and according to the judgement of all he merited it."

Father Salmeron figured prominently from the very outset of the Council. During the first period of the Council he was charged by Cardinal Santa Cruz, President of the Council, to summarize from the books of heretics their chief errors. Jayo wrote at that time from Trent: "By the grace of the Lord D. Diego (Lainez) and D. Alfonso (Alonso Salmeron) have done excellently in giving their votum. And certainly I do not know that Rome has greater confidence in any theologian.''

At this time Lainez had to go, for health reasons, to Florence, and Salmeron was left alone to deal with the Eucharistic Sacrifice during the period of the Council's sojourn at Bologna. During this period of the Council, Salmeron delivered a striking discourse to prove that Christ offered a true sacrifice at the Last Supper. The summary of this discourse occupies four large pages. But it is particularly with the third period of the Council that we are at present concerned, and so I shall outline the activities of Salmeron during this period.

On July 21, 1562, Salmeron addressed a most distinguished gathering. The record as given by Jo.B. Ficleri states: "On the 21st day in the afternoon congregation (or assembly) the theologians began to examine the thirteen above-mentioned articles concerning the sacrifice of the Mass. Alphonsus (Alonso) Salmeron, a theologian of the Society of Jesus, spoke first. The congregation (meeting) ended at six o'clock. There were present five Legates, Cardinal Madrutz, 'Ora tores Caesarei,' one hundred and seventy bishops, about one hundred theologians, and two thousand other 'auditores.' "

Commenting on this passage, Alonso writes: "There were not wanting to the learned Jesuit qualities which brought to hear him such illustrious persons, even those who were unaccustomed to attend other meetings. We have already seen him, during the first period of the Council, not only put together in a compendium the opinions of the theologians and speak for two days of matter that was to be again set forth, but also compose during those days a first scheme of doctrine about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

From this historic discourse I shall quote but one sentence: "Christ did not dissolve the law, but fulfilled it, the figure, that is, of the Lamb; otherwise, if He had not immolated Himself at the Supper, He would not have fulfilled that figure." Throughout his discourse Salmeron used the words offerre and immolare in the broad sense, as equivalent to sacrificare, sacrificium peragere. This was in accordance with Tridentine usage and was likewise the sense in which the "Reformers" used these terms.

Long debates concerning the Supper ensued during the third period of the Council. Here are the words of Mucio Calino, Archbishop of Zara: "We have come to the end of the theologians' discussions, and today we can proceed to the doctrine and canons formulated so that they may be examined from now till Monday and each one may state his opinion.

But it should be known here that a great controversy opens; for on one side Salmeron, moved by the authority of many early Fathers, who he maintains prove his opinion, would like to state expressly in the doctrine that Christ, Our Lord, at the Last Supper offered and sacrificed Himself under the species of bread and wine, while, on the other side, Peter Soto," etc.

Becadelli wrote thus on August 10: "Tomorrow, God willing, we shall commence to treat of it (the matter concerning the Mass), and already there are reports that presage controversy. Salmeron and others wish to declare that the words, 'Hoc facite in meam commemorationem,' means that 'Christus in ultima coena sensibilibus speciebus panis et vini obtulit se Patri.' "

The Archbishop of Zara, whom I have already quoted, gives an account of the discourse of the Bishop of Veglia, in which the former states: "Having nothing to say against these testimonies, he delivered an invective against Father Salmeron, without mentioning his name. He (Salmeron) spent his energy in collecting in a volume those authorities; he had shown and communicated them to various persons. Nor could he (the Bishop of Veglia) endure that those booklets be carried secretly, as it were, hither and thither," etc.

In a letter written at the same time Visconti states: "The Bishop of Veglia adduces many reasons against those who hold the opinion 'quod Christus seipsum obtulit in coena.' " And he adds: "The Bishop, opposing the insertion of Christ's oblation in the doctrine, said that some were going about showing the allegations made in order to persuade 'quod Christus seipsum obtulit in coena,' and he wished to imply Father Salmeron, of whom the Bishop of Lanciano had privately confirmed the same fact, stating that he (Salmeron) had been in the house of some of the Prelates to persuade them to accept this opinion."

Paleotti writes: "The first opinion was of those who said that Christ offered Himself at the Supper (se in coena ob-tulisse); of which teaching Salmeron, the Jesuit, had collected many authorities from the Greek and Latin Fathers when he discussed the matter amongst the minor theologians; which he wrote down and showed to many to read them, before the 'sentential of the Fathers were asked; which opinion gained very many defenders.'

Visconti, writing to St. Charles Borromeo on September 3 said: "Cardinal Hosz has decided to propose a new form of doctrine different from that which has already been corrected, and it is thought that he has been induced to do so by Torres and Salmeron."

In an appendix to his large volume Father Alonso gives us the ten reasons of Salmeron, which prove that Christ offered a true (complete) sacrifice at the Last Supper. On these reasons, which occupy over eight pages, I shall not dwell. Nor shall I outline the stormy debate which took place during the twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent before an overwhelming majority of the Fathers finally voted for the insertion of the word O'btulit in the definition regarding the Last Supper, despite the determined opposition of the President, Cardinal Seripando.

To the impartial student who carefully reads all available documents concerning the Council of Trent it must be abundantly clear that Father Alonso Salmeron, S.J., was the star theologian of that Council and that, humanly speaking, it was due largely to his scholarship, zeal, and energy that the Fathers of the Council inserted the word obtulit in the final Decree on the Last Supper.